17/01/2024
*PETITION NO: EPT/KG/ GOV/03/2023 BETWEEN: YAKUBU MURTALA & ANOR VS. INEC & 2ORS*
The Tribunal Sat.
The Parties were absent.
The matter was slated for ruling on the 2nd Respondent’s application and hearing of the 3rd Respondent’s motion on Notice filed on the 12th of January 2024.
Ruling:
The Hon. Tribunal began with the 1st issue of the Petitioners regarding the competence of the 2nd Respondent’s application having filed 25 days after the service of the order on him and thus held that the application was incompetent by virtue of order 26 of the Federal Court High Court civil Procedure Rules 2019 and the application was accordingly dismissed.
On the merit, the tribunal considered the question formulated by the 2nd Respondent/Applicant on what amount to proper service. The Tribunal held that the 2nd Respondent was duly served on the following grounds:
1. That all the parties to the petition ( including the 2nd Respondent) had a meeting and the order of the court was presented at the meeting.
2. That P. B Daudu attended the meeting at the office of the 1st Respondent.
3. That J. B Daudu wrote a letter dated 1st January 2024 to the 1st Respondent wherein he acknowledged the order made by this Hon. Tribunal.
It is clear that if probative value should be ascribed to the deposition that the 2nd Respondent became aware of the Order on the 28th December 2023 when the 1st Respondent sent invitation to the parties and 2nd respondent was in attendance of the said meeting held on 29th December 2023.
Also, the act of the 2nd Respondent stumbling upon the order also amounts to a valid and proper service.
On the second leg of the 2nd Respondent’s (ODODO) argument in respect of the interpretation of the word “inspection ” as contained in section 146 of the Electoral Act, the Hon. Tribunal held that the order directing the Petitioners to access and inspect the electoral document is a right rooted in the Constitution,and not doing so will amount to a breach of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners as the 2nd Respondent was unable to show that the order ex-parte was arbitrary to warrant the Tribunal to set it aside.
Furthermore, the Honourable Tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioners (Muri and SDP) and held that the application was incompetent, unwarranted, null, and void.
In respect of the Motion on Notice: EPT/KG/GOV/O3/M4/2023 filed on the 12th January 2024 by the 3rd Respondent.
The learned counsel to the 3rd Respondent (APC) sought to withdraw the said Motion. The Petitioners and other Respondents did not oppose the application to withdraw. The Motion was accordingly withdrawn and struck out by the Tribunal.
NOTE: Another similar motion was again filed by the 3rd Respondent on the 16th day of January 2024 and was served on us in court today the 17th day of January 2024 at 08:53am.
It was therefore agreed that the said application will be taken during the pre- hearing session.
Appearances:
Chief J. S. Okutepa, SAN;
Chief A. A. Malik SAN;
Shaibu Enejoh Aruwa, SAN
P.D Abalaka Esq;
John Mathew Esq;
Realwan Okpanachi Esq;
Chika Henry Ezeh Esq;
Adanu Emmanuel Ogwiji Esq.
1ST RESPONDENT.
M.A Abubakar, SAN
H. D Mohammed, Esq.
A. M Robert, Esq.
Usman Mohammed, Esq.
Victoria Ogunie, Esq.
2ND RESPONDENT.
M.Y Abdullahi, SAN
A. M Aliyu, SAN
Abdullahi Yahaya, SAN
Monday Adeh, Esq.
P.D Daudu, Esq.
Alex Izinyon II, Esq
3RD RESPONDENT
D.C Denwigwe, SAN
Ayo Asala SAN,
N Jimoh SAN,
Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN
O.J Iheku, Esq.
Eberechi C. Nzagu, Esq.
I.D Ijele
17/01/2024
N.B
1ST RESPONDENT
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
2NDRESPONDENT
AHMED USMAN ODODO
3RD RESPONDENT ALLPROGRESSIVES CONGRESS
