site logo

FELEMU GUDU BANKOLE OLUSEGUN V. HONOURABLE ABIODUN OGUNBI & (2016)

Case Digest

Court of Appeal (Akure Division)

Coram

  • Mojeed A. Owoade JCA (Presided)
  • Mohammed A. Danjuma JCA (Read the Lead Judgment)
  • James Shehu Abiriyi JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Felemu Gudu Bankole Olusegun

Respondents:

  • Honourable Abiodun Ogunbi
  • People's Democratic Party (PDP)
  • All Progressives Congress (APC)
  • Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
  • The Returning Officer, Akoko South West, Constituency II
  • The Commissioner of Police, Ondo State
  • The Nigeria Police
  • Alhaji Ali Olanusi
Suit number: CA/AK/EPT/HA/86/2015

Background

The matter revolves around an electoral petition following the Ondo State House of Assembly election where the appellant, Felemu Gudu Bankole Olusegun of the All Progressive Congress (APC), was declared the winner. The 1st and 2nd respondents, who were contenders in the election representing the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), were dissatisfied and filed a petition against the appellant. During the hearings, procedural issues, particularly concerning the timeliness of pre-hearing notices under the Electoral Act, were central to the arguments.

Issues

The case presented significant legal questions:

  1. Whether the tribunal erred by assuming jurisdiction when the application for the issuance of a pre-hearing notice was made after the stipulates timeline according to the Electoral Act.
  2. The adequacy of compliance by respondents concerning the legislated timelines for issuing the pre-hearing notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial tribunal wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the petition due to the petitioners' failure to adhere to the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, specifically paragraph 18(1) regarding the timeline for pre-hearing notices. The court emphasized that compliance with the strict timelines is essential and should be adhered to for a valid application.

Court Findings

The court examined the procedural history and the timing of the respondents’ replies. The appellant's counsel successfully argued that the last set of responses had been received, and any application for a pre-hearing notice thereafter was invalid. The court further assessed the role of the 7th respondent, who had not submitted a reply, clarifying that the absence of a response did not benefit other respondents in terms of time extensions for compliance.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed, leading to the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of abandonment. The Court noted that the absence of an application for a pre-hearing notice timely filed meant that the petition could not effectively proceed. Therefore, the previous ruling by the tribunal was struck out.

Significance

This case underscores the necessity for adherence to procedural timelines in electoral petitions, reinforcing the interpretation of the Electoral Act's provisions. It highlights the balance between the right to fair trial and the need for expeditious handling of electoral matters.