Paragraph 4

On Right to present a petition:

LABOUR PARTY & 1 OR. v. INEC & 2 ORS. (CA/L/EP/HR/LAG/20/2023)(Unreported) Per Mohammed Baba Idris, JCA @ Pg.37

In this case , the Court of Appeal in upholding the tribunal’s dismissal of the petition due to the Petitioners failure to justify his right to present the instant petition stated that;

“A Petitioner who was not a candidate in an election and who has a right to file a petition, must specify his right to present the petition. For the reason that the Appellant was not a candidate at the election, it was therefore incumbent upon him to state in full and explicit terms his right to present the election petition. To specify means to explain clearly; to mention clearly; to mention specifically; to state in full and explicit terms and; to particularise and explain in detail.”

See also Kaka v. Daniel (2009)14 NWLR(1161)416

On Requirement to clearly state facts and grounds upon which a petition is brought:

ABUBAKAR ATIKU & ANOR. V. INEC & ORS (Unreported) SC/CV/935/2023 per Inyang Okoro, JSC @ page 96

“It is clear beyond peradventure that the requirement of the law as provided above is that the petition must demonstrate with specificity, the complaints of the petitioner and the relief sought from the court. It gives no room for vagueness and imprecision. This is in line with the rule of pleading that where an averment is not supported by evidence, the averment is deemed abandoned, for in keeping with the audi alteram partem rule, to prevent surprise or ambush on the defendant, it is the plaintiff’s claim that would enable him file his defence.”

OLUMUYIWA OWADARA & 1 OR. v. INEC & 2 ORS. (CA/L/EP/HR/LAG/08/2023) (Unreported) Per Joseph Ekanem JCA @ Pg. 9-11

In upholding the striking out of certain paragraphs of the petition by the Tribunal for falling short of the requirements of paragraph 4 (1) (d) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022. The Court of Appeal held thus;

“I have read those averments. It is clear that they are completely bereft of particulars or details to support the grounds. There is no averment as to what the “substantial non-compliance" is except the allegation that the 1st Respondent did not transmit accreditation and polling unit results to the INEC result viewing. Again the exact polling units where such non-compliance, alleged acts of violence, intimidation, fracas, threats, malpractices, ballot box snatching, over-voting, boycott of BVAS Machine, mutilation of polling unit results took place were not specified in the petition. Paragraph 4 (1) (d) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 requires that an election petition under the Act shall state clearly the facts of the election and the ground or grounds on which the petition is based and the relief sought by the petitioner. The facts must be stated with particularity otherwise the averments will be vague and nebulous, and liable to be struck out….On the basis of the absence of particulars of the grounds of the petition, it is my view that the tribunal was on firm ground in striking out the paragraphs of the petition under review.”

See also PDP v. INEC (2012)7 NWLR (Pt. 1300) 538, 560

On Filing of witness statements on oath along with petition.

OKE V. MIMIKO (NO.1) (2024) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) Pg. 225 , Per Ogunbiyi, JSC.

In emphasising the fundamentality of the above subject matter, the Supreme Court held thus;

“By Paragraph 4 (1) and 4 (5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, a composite analysis of contents of an election petition has been spelt out and also a list of materials which must be accompanied. The use of the word shall in the subsections is very instructive, mandatory and conclusive. In other words, the provisions do not allow for additions. Expressly there is no provision in the legislation which provides for an extension of time.”

The Supreme Court found in that case that an application for extension of time to file additional witness depositions after the period provided by the Electoral Act for the exchange of pleadings which had lapsed, amounted to a surreptitious attempt to amend the petition. It was held that in view of the provisions of Section 285 (5) of the Constitution, the trial Tribunal had no discretion to exercise.

On timelines for filing witness statement:

The Supreme Court in ABUBAKAR ATIKU & ANOR. V. INEC & ORS (SC/CV/935/2023) per Hon. Justice Okoro, JSC:
"My noble Lords, a combined reading of section 285(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and paragraph 4 (5) of First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 shows that the time limit for the filing of written statement on oath of witnesses in election petition proceedings is 21 days from the date of declaration of results.”

“It has to be emphasized that the use of the word "shall" in paragraph 4(1) and (5) of the 1st Schedule to Electoral Act makes it mandatory and conclusive. The question may be asked; can a court extend time circumscribed by the constitution for a party to do anything he could not do before the expiration of the time?The obvious answer is no. Such provisions like section 285(5) of the constitution are mandatory and any exercise of discretion by the court is without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity.

EDEOGA & LP V. INEC, MBAH & PDP (SC/CV/1130/2023) (Unreported) at page 27, the Supreme Court per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC held:
“The decision of this court on the issue is definite, precise, unequivocal and clear for easy understanding and comprehension even to a non-legal mind.”