site logo

KERE V. KALBA (2004)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Jos Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, JCA
  • Oludade Oladapo Obadina, JCA
  • Ifeyinwa Cecilia Nzeako, JCA

Parties:

Appellants:

  • Hon. Kiliyobas Audu Kere
  • People's Democratic Party (PDP)

Respondents:

  • Adamu Gora Kalba
  • Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
  • Various Presiding Officers and Electoral Officers
Suit number: CA/J/160/2003

Background

This case arose from the legislative elections held on April 12, 2003, for the Kaltungo/Shongom Federal Constituency in Nigeria. The first appellant, Hon. Kiliyobas Audu Kere, representing the People's Democratic Party (PDP), contested against the first respondent, Adamu Gora Kalba, a candidate for the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP). The first respondent was declared the winner by scoring the highest number of valid votes cast. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a petition to challenge the election results, seeking to have the Tribunal declare him the winner.

Issues

The primary issues raised in this appeal were:

  1. Whether the omission of the appellants to sign the petition by themselves and to include their address and its occupier was fatal to the validity of the petition.
  2. Whether the first respondent had waived his right to object to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding the petition's compliance.
  3. Whether the Tribunal erred in striking out the petition based on non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found primarily that the non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act was substantial and rendered the petition invalid. It emphasized that the requirement to include one's address for service and the name of the occupier is mandatory.

  1. The Tribunal was right to find that the lack of signatures and the incorrectly filed address stripped it of jurisdiction.
  2. Jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any point, including on appeal, and cannot be waived by a party.
  3. Failing to comply with statutory provisions regarding election petitions constitutes a serious error, preventing the Tribunal from adjudicating the matter.

Court Findings

The Court determined that:

  1. The petitioners had failed to fulfill mandatory requirements set out in the Electoral Act, resulting in no valid petition being before the Tribunal.
  2. Jurisdiction cannot be waived; thus, the first respondent's previous actions did not equate to waiving his right to challenge the petition's validity.
  3. The Tribunal acted correctly in striking out the petition as it lacked jurisdiction due to the defects in the petition.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the Tribunal's ruling. The Court concluded that the petition was fundamentally flawed and could not be amended to render it competent.

Significance

The case underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements in election petitions. It clarifies that failures in compliance with rules such as providing a proper address for service and signed petitions can lead to dismissal, thereby impacting future election-related litigations.