Paragraph 15
Particulars of votes rejectedWhen a petitioner claims the seat alleging that he had the highest number of valid votes cast at the election, the party defending the election or return at the election shall set out clearly in his reply particulars of the votes, if any, which he objects to and the reasons for his objection against such votes, showing how he intends to prove at the hearing that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed.
i. This paragraph places a burden on the Respondent, who alleges in his reply that the Petitioner did not win, to contest the votes allegedly set out by a Petitioner in his Petition and establish at the trial that the Petitioner was not entitled to succeed or be returned
ii.
The Respondent is empowered to challenge the votes set out by a Petitioner by way of
Objection to vote stating the reasons for such objection.
Read Ahmad & Anor v. Bala & Ors (2019) LPELR-48811 & APC v. Deen & Ors (2019) LPELR-49080
(CA) and APC V. Adeleke (2019) LPELR-47736 (CA)
iii.
Where the party defending the election or return fails to comply with paragraph 15, the
result tendered by the Petitioner will be deemed unchallenged and uncontroverted.
Read Agagu v. Mimiko (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 342.
On paragraph 15 not being a ground for a Respondent to challenge an election that he won.
OHERE SADIKU ABUBAKAR & APC V. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, PDP & INEC, (CA/ABJ/EP/SEN/KG/35/2023) (Unreported)
The Court of Appeal held here that Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act cannot be used to challenge an election based on the complaint of non-compliance. A respondent, by paragraph 15, can object to the votes of the petitioners, however, the objection must be within the limits and confines of the case of the petitioner, especially the grounds relied upon by the petitioner since there is no cross petition. It shall not be interpreted to mean that a respondent can challenge the election in its entirety or seek to invalidate an election in any of the Polling Units. Also, Paragraph 15 of the 1st Schedule cannot be interpreted to contradict section 130(1) of the EA which states how to petition an election.
On the Respondent’s onus to prove the lawfulness of the votes he was elected with.
UDENDE MENSA EMMANUEL v. GABRIEL TORWUA SUSWAM & 3 ORS. (CA/MK/EP/BN/SEN/14/2023) (Unreported) @ Pg. 51
In pronouncing on the Respondent’s duty to effectively defend the validity of the votes he/she garnered in the election being
challenged by the petitioner. The Court of Appeal held that;
“… The question of whether votes are lawful or unlawful can only be wholly determined on consideration of what the Electoral Act defines a lawful vote to be. Therefore, a complaint that a respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election, is in effect a complaint that the votes by which the respondent was elected, were not cast in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, which define what amounts to lawful vote. To this extent, such a petitioner can take advantage of the provisions of Section 137.”
