Paragraph 47
Motions and Applications(1) No motion shall be moved and all motions shall come up at the pre-hearing session except in extreme circumstances with leave of Tribunal or Court.
(2) Where by these Rules any application is authorised to be made to the Tribunal or Court, such application shall be made by motion which may be supported by affidavit and shall state under what rule or law the application is brought and shall be served on the respondent.
(3) Every such application shall be accompanied by a written address in support of the reliefs sought.
(4) Where the respondent to the motion intends to oppose the application, he shall within seven days of the service on him of such application file his written address and may accompany it with a counter affidavit.
(5) The applicant may, on being served with the written address of the respondent file and serve an address in reply on points of law within three days of being served and where a counter-affidavit is served on the applicant he may file further affidavit with his reply.
i. This paragraph seeks to provide for the procedure or avenue for disposal of interlocutory issues capable of slowing down or truncating the hearing of the main Petition in view of the sui generis (special) nature of an election petition.
ii. In order to ensure uninterrupted and smooth hearing of Election Petition, the paragraph makes it mandatory for all Motions or Applications to be filed and heard during the Pre-hearing session except in extreme circumstances with the leave or permission of the Tribunal or Court sought and obtained.
iii.
Note therefore that where a party intends to file and move a Motion outside the Pre-hearing
session, Prayer 1 on the face of such Motion Paper must be “Leave to file and argue the
Motion
outside the Pre-Hearing Session” otherwise, the Tribunal or Court will lack the jurisdiction
to
entertain such application.
Read Asuquo v. Ekpo & Anor (2019) LPELR-48168(CA)
On failure to support an application by motion with an affidavit.
EZEH NICHOLAS CHIKA & 1 OR v. NGWU OSITA & 2 ORS (EPT/EN/SEN/09/2023) (Unreported) Pg. 26 Per Ibitham
While ruling on the compulsory requirement that all motions are to be accompanied by an affidavit, the Tribunal held as follows;
“From the above provision, where a motion requires an affidavit as in the instant case, a failure to file a competent affidavit
renders the application liable to be struck out. The affidavit in support of this application being defective, this application is hereby struck out.”
