Paragraph 12
Filing of reply(1) The respondent shall, within 21 days of service of the petition on him file in the registry his reply, specifying in it which of the facts alleged in the election petition he admits and which he denies, and setting out the facts on which he relies in opposition to the election petition.
(2) Where the respondent in an election petition, complaining of an undue return and claiming the seat or office for a petitioner intend to prove that the claim is incorrect or false, the respondent in his reply shall set out the facts and figures clearly and distinctly disproving the claim of the petitioner.
(3) The reply may be signed by the respondent or the solicitor representing him, if any and shall state the name and address of the solicitor at which subsequent processes shall be served; and shall be accompanied by copies of documentary evidence, list of witnesses and the written statements on oath.
(4) At the time of filing the reply, the respondent or his solicitor, if any shall leave with the Secretary copies of the reply for services on the other parties to the election petition with 10 extra copies of the reply to be preserved by the Secretary, and pay the fees for service as may be prescribed or directed by the Secretary, and in default of leaving the required copies of the reply or paying the fees for service, the reply shall be deemed not to have been filed, unless the Tribunal or Court otherwise orders.
(5) A respondent who has an objection to the hearing of the petition shall file his reply and state the objection in it, and the objection shall be heard along with the substantive petition.
i.
This paragraph seeks to specify the time frame within which a Respondent served with a
Petition can filed and serve a Reply on the Petitioner in view of the sui
generis
(special) nature of election petition.
Read Ize-Iyamu v. ADP & Ors (2021) LPELR-54292(CA) and Sani A. & Anor v. Akwe & Ors
(2019)
LPELR-48756(CA).
ii. The paragraph makes it mandatory for a Respondent to file a Reply within 21 days from the date of the service of the Petition on him/her and to accompany same with copies of documents, list of witnesses and written statement on oath.
iii. The 2010 Act provided for only 14 days for Reply. Due to this, Election Petition lawyers avoided filing a Memorandum of Appearance upon being served with a Petition. This is because once a Memorandum of Appearance is filed, such Respondent had just 14 days to file their Reply but where a Respondent does not file a Memorandum of Appearance, the provision of paragraph 10 (2) kicks in allowing them 21 days to file a Reply to the Petition.
iv. The new Act harmonises this timeline by providing for 21 days from receipt of a petition to file a Reply to a Petition, whether a Memorandum of Appearance has been put in or not (the latter is still not a strict requirement).
v.
The provision in
paragraph (12) (5)
saying that a preliminary objection will be heard along
with the substantive petition is aimed at ensuring that such objections (e.g., to the
jurisdiction of the court) do not derail the determination of the merit of the case by undue
and
unwarranted delay occasioned by a preliminary objection.
Read Oke & Ors v. Mimiko & Ors (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 225
On the hearing of a Respondent’s Objection raised in his reply to a petition alongside the substantive matter.
EZEH EMMANUEL EZEH & LABOUR PARTY v. HON. UGURU EMMANUEL, APC, INEC, THE RETURNING OFFICER CA/ABJ/EPT/HR/06/2023) (Unreported) Per Abundaga, JCA @ Pg. 45
In this case the Petitioner contended that the motion objecting to his failure to apply for pre-hearing notice in accordance with para.18 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act should be taken alongside the substantive matter and decided at the end of the proceedings. The Court of Appeal in dismissing his argument and differentiating the applicability of Para. 18 from that of Para. 12 (5) held thus;
“The provisions above (Para.12(5)) deal with objection to the jurisdiction of the court. It also deals with other interlocutory issues that may arise in the course of hearing an election petition. The mischief sought to be cured behind those provisions is that because of the limited time within which a petition is to be heard and determined, hearing and determining every objection may eat deep into the time of the petition and may lead to situation where the time provided for the disposal of the petition may expire without the petition having been fully heard and determined. However, the situation with para.18 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act is different”
In a nutshell the purport of this holding by the Court of Appeal is that a motion objecting to the failure of a petitioner to apply for pre-trial hearing conference notice is not one of those matters contemplated under para. 12 (5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act.
