election petition tribunal, powers, petitions, pleadings, grounds, processes, service of processes & trial

Yes. As a matter of fact, the nature of an election proceeding and how it affects the society at large makes time invaluable. The society cannot be left on “auto pilot” simply because of political arguments which most of the times turns out to be baseless. As a result, it is imperative that these arguments are quickly dispensed with. Thus any person or party aggrieved with an election result must approach the court and seek redress within 21 days after the date of the declaration of the election results. Section 132(7) Electoral Act 2022.

No. Any appeal therefrom must however be delivered within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal. For the purpose of the appellate court, it is necessary to add that the appellate court may hear the appeal and see to it that it delivers its judgment within the 60 days period, and reserved the reason for same to a later date. Section 132(9) and (10) Electoral Act 2022

In every election, a winner emerges. However, the results of this election may be subject to scrutiny and dissatisfaction. Most times, the losers of these elections approach the court in order to somehow overturn these declared results. In doing so, they file what is called a petition. Of course, the winners of these elections must protect their mandate, consequently they respond to the petition filed against them. Thus, a respondent is a person who responds to a petition filed against him by the loser of the election. SECTION 133(2) Electoral Act 2022.

It is a mandatory provision that the petition be signed by the petitioner or his solicitor and it must be complied with to make the petition competent. Where it is not complied with, the whole petition is rendered invalid and the tribunal will lack the jurisdiction to act on it. See ORIZU V. UZOEGWU (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 605) 32 at 42.

By paragraph 4(1) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022, an election petition must contain the following; • Specify the parties interested in the election petition; • Specify the right of the petitioner to present the petition; • State the holding of the election, the score of the candidate and the person returned as the winner of the election; • State clearly the facts of the election petition and the grounds on which the petition is based including the reliefs sought.

No. An unsigned document is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. It is the signature in a document that gives that document an authority or legality. Where signature is of necessity to the validity of a document, failure to sign same renders such document invalid. An election petition is one of such documents. For it to be valid, it must be signed either by the petitioner or by his solicitor else it will be defective and thus liable to be struck out. SEE IDRIS v ANPP 8NWLR (Pt. 1088) Pg. 1 @ 177-179; paragraph 4(3b) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

The answer is yes. Where a Returning Officer makes alteration of election results by cancelling the name of a party and substituting it with another party’s name, this alteration of votes recorded for the candidates, these will constitute a ground for election petition. See SALIKN V. IDRIS (2014) 5 S.C. (PT. II) 45 at 62

The answer is no. Where a petitioner states the ground on which he is challenging the return of his opponent the court has no duty searching for any other ground in the petition. See OSHIOMOLE V. AIRHIAVBERE (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1353) 376 at 397, 398

The answer is no. Once an election is questioned on the basis of invalidity, it can be predicated on corrupt practices or non-compliance. The use of “or” connotes an alternative or an option. Consequently both corrupt practices and non-compliance should not be joined together as one ground. See GOYOL V. INEC (No. 2) (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1311) 218 at 229-230 paras G-B.

It is generally advised that court process be served personally on the intended recipient. However, where the notice to be served is not the initial notice of presenting the election petition filed, then service of process in an election petition may either be effected personally or by leaving it at the last known address of the recipient in his constituency with any person found who is a resident of the abode and appears to be 18 years of age or more. See paragraph 48 (1)(2) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

The answer is No. The 7-day period allowed for applying for the pre-hearing session counts from the date of the Petitioner’s service of his reply to the Respondent’s reply on the Respondent or 7 days from the date of the Respondent’s service of his reply to the petition on the Petitioner where the Petitioner does not intend to file a reply to the Respondent’s reply. See KENNEDY V. INEC (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1123) 614 at 638.

Where service by any of the mode stated above becomes impracticable, the party serving must satisfy the court of this impracticability by bringing an application supported with an affidavit showing that all reasonable effort was made to effect service and praying the court for an order to serve by substituted means. The court may upon being satisfied with the application grant an order that process be served by substituted means or that service be dispensed with altogether. See paragraph 48 (4) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

More often than not, two or more candidate may be respondents to the same petition and their case may be heard at the same time for the sake of convenience. However, at all-time material, the petition is treated as a separate petition against each respondent. See paragraph 49 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Where two or more petitions are presented in relation to the same election or return, the court is empowered to consolidate, consider and deal with the petitions as if they are one petition unless the tribunal directs otherwise in the interest of justice or there is an objection against one or more of the petition that has been upheld. See paragraph 50 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Noncompliance with any provisions either in the schedule to the Electoral Act or the rule of practice at the time being operative will not render any proceeding void except as otherwise stated or implied or unless the tribunal so directs. However, the proceeding may be set aside wholly or in part as irregular or amended or be otherwise dealt with in such a manner as the court may deem fit and just. See paragraph 53 of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022.

A party who challenges an election proceeding on the ground of it being irregular and a nullity must do so as soon as possible. He must do so within a reasonable time. He must show the legal grounds on which the application is based. Where however, the party challenging the proceeding has already taken step to reply to the process which he contends is defective having been knowledgeable of this defect, his application will fail. See paragraph 53(2)(3) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

No. Except where the defect is not easily amendable, then an election petition will not be defeated by an objection as to defect in form if it is possible at the time the objection is raised to remedy the defect either by way of amendment or in any other way as the court may direct. See paragraph 53(4) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

No. An objection challenging the regularity or competence of an election petition will be heard and determined only after the close of pleadings. See paragraph 53(5) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

No. The statutory responsibility to conduct election is INEC’s alone. See Okafor v INEC (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1180) 1 @49 para D.

No. Even though it is a prerequisite that INEC publishes the list of persons standing nominated, the non-publication by INEC of the name of a candidate for election does not derogate from the validity of the candidate’s nomination where such candidate already satisfies the requirement. See Iniama v Akpabio (2008) 17NWLR (pt.1116) 255 @ 310 para B-E.

Having filed the election petition within the time stipulated by law, the next stage is for the winner of the election (which is the respondent in this case) to enter appearance to defend the suit. This he does by filing a memorandum of appearance together with his reply to the petition. The petitioner is then given an opportunity to file a reply to the defence by the respondent. Having done this, the petitioner and/or respondent may file an application for a pre-hearing note. It is at this stage that motions and other matters will be taken and issues raised will be streamlined for the purpose of trial. After this stage, the hearing of the petition commence proper leading to success of the petition or dismissal. See ALLI v OSAKWE (2009) 14NWLR (Pt.1160) Pg.72 @ 141 per Ogunwumiju JCA

The nature of an election petition makes the pre-hearing stage a very important step in this direction. It is at this stage that certain preliminary issues are sorted out. The essence is to ensure that time is protected at all cost for the purpose of effectively expediting action. This is the stage where parties determines who to join in the action, what to amend in the process, how documents is to be tendered and whether there will be an objection to it. The number of witness to call and the manner they will be called etc. It is the duty of the petitioner to apply for pre-hearing. If they fail to do so, the respondent may file same. However the respondent is not obligated to do so as he more or less has nothing to lose. In fact, the respondent may even bring an application to dismiss the petition. Nevertheless, in the event nobody files for pre-hearing, the tribune is duty bound to dismiss the petition. Paragraph 18 of the1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022; Okereke v Yar’Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt.1100) 95 at 118

For the purpose of dismissal of a petition on the ground of failure to apply for pre-hearing, the court becomes functus officio. The dismissal is final and no application can remedy it. See Paragraph 18(5) of the1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022; Okereke v Yar’Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt.1100) 95 at 118

Except there is a good reason why this is so and which reason the court is aware of and feels satisfied with it, the court will strike out the petition. In this instance, a striking out appears as a dismissal as there will be no granting of any application that seeks to re-list the struck out suit. See paragraph 46 (1) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

Where only the petitioner is present, the court will allow the petitioner to prove his case in so far the burden of proof lies on him. The tribunal then proceeds to enter judgment on the fact before it. Nevertheless, the court is not mandated to grant the prayers of the petitioner simply because the respondent is absent. See paragraph 46 (2) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Yes. If the aggrieved party (the petitioner) is absent and the respondent is present, the court will dismiss the petition and enter a final judgment for, that is, in favour of the respondent. See paragraph 46 (3) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

Documents which are put in as evidence at trial may be read or taken as read with the consent of the parties. They are then deemed demonstrated in open court. However, parties to the case are given the opportunity to address the court and argue on the content of the document. The tribunal is then left with ascribing probative value to the document having first scrutinize and investigate its content in line with the arguments. See paragraph 46 (4) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

Parties are entitled to close their case after they have concluded their evidence. However, the nature of election petition makes it mandatory that time must be adhered to strictly. Thus where the court is satisfied that a party is mischievously delaying trial and deliberately wasting time, or where, the parties by such as tardiness as aforesaid allow the statutory period set down for the trial to be reached, the court can by its own motion close the case of the party. See paragraph 46 (5)(6) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

A Pre-Hearing application must be filed within seven days from the date of the filing and serving of the petitioner’s reply on the respondent. Where same is not done within the stipulated time, any further application for that purpose is irrelevant and goes to no issue. Paragraph 18 of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022; Okereke v Yar’Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt.1100) 95 at 118

Generally, where an election petition is filed, the respondent is expected to file a memorandum of appearance if he or she intends to give answer to the petition challenging his victory at the election. Where however the respondent fails to do this, the respondent may nevertheless proceed to file his or her answer to the petition even without first filing the said memorandum of appearance and he or she will be deemed to have validly entered appearance. The non-filing of memorandum of appearance will not bar the respondent from defending the suit where he or she files a defence to the petition. See Paragraph 10(2) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022.

The essence of filing a memorandum of appearance is to notify the court that the respondent intends to oppose the suit challenging the election. It is also an avenue to inform the court and the petitioner who your counsel is in the matter or whether the respondent is acting or defending the suit himself. It ensures that the respondent gives an address in order that service of other process may be effected on him in respect of the matter. See paragraph 9(1) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

Yes. A memorandum of appearance having no address for service is defective and cannot be relied on. In fact, where a memorandum of appearance of this nature is filed, the court will deem it that the respondent have not entered appearance at all in respect of the matter. However, the court has the discretion to decide otherwise where it is convinced by some other material fact that appearance has validly been entered. See paragraph 9(2) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

Where a respondent files a reply to the petition challenging his return as the winner of an election, he must state clearly which of the facts alleged in the election petition he admits and which one he denies. He must also set out the facts which he relies in opposition to the petition. He must however ensure that he does this within 21 days of service of the petition on him. This reply must be signed by him personally or the solicitor representing him, otherwise it will be incompetent. See paragraph 12 of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022.

Yes. However such objection must be raised early and included in the reply to the petition so that it will be heard together with the substantive suit. AN objection to the hearing of the suit cannot be filed independent of the reply to the petition. See paragraph 12(5) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

The answer is no. It would be totally inappropriate, misconceived, and wholly unacceptable to ask the court or tribunal at the pre-trial stage to strike out any of the reliefs or paragraphs of the petition in limine, before evidence is led and the election finally determined. See YESUFU V. OBASANJO (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 293 at 308.

The answer is no. The innovative signature of the petition by proxy is extrinsic to the clear provision of the law, which leaves no room for a third avenue for signing the petition. In effect, it renders the petition as good as never signed and therefore incompetent. It is thus a non-starter and the tribunal ought to strike it out. See MELAYE V. TAJUDEEN (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 315 at 341

A court process signed by a legal practitioner must follow this pattern set forth by the court thus: a. The signature of counsel which may be by any contraption b. The name of the counsel clearly written c. The party who counsel represents d. Name and address of Legal Firm SLB CONSORTIUM V. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317 at 337-338 PARAS H-A.

The answer is no. An election petition is properly constituted once the process has as parties, a candidate in an election and/or the political party of the candidate that participated in the election on the one hand, and the candidate that was declared winner and INEC on the other hand. The non-joinder of the political party of the candidate that was declared winner cannot defeat the election petition properly constituted. See NGIGE V. AKUNYILI (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 343 at 375.

The answer is no. Where an application seeks to put in facts which were allegedly not available at the time of filing an election petition but only come into the petitioner’s possession after the statutory time limit has elapsed, the court cannot extend time as such introduction will amount to an attempt to amend outside the time allowed by the Electoral Act. See OKE V. MIMIKO (NO. 1) 2014 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 255 at 263.

Yes. However, any such amendment must be concluded within the time frame ordinarily allowed for the filing of an election petition or the reply as the case may be. Where however an amendment is made after the time allowed for the presentation of an election petition, such amendment cannot be one which alters the ground for or the prayers in the original election petition. Nevertheless, the statement of facts relied on to support the ground for or sustain the prayers in the election petition can be amended. For the purpose of amending a reply to a petition, no amendment can be allowed alleging that the claim of the seat or office by the petitioner is incorrect or false. See paragraph 14 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

The duty of the respondent is to defend his victory in an election by answering the grievance raised by the petitioner in his election petition. Where the respondent in his reply to the petitioner’s petition goes outside this scope and proceeds to raise new issues, the petitioner has a right to reply to such new issues raised. However, the petitioner cannot use this medium to bring new facts, grounds or prayers tending to amend or add to the content of the petition filed by him. For this purpose, there is no room for extension of time. See paragraph 16(1) (2) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

The period of 30 days within which the petition must be filed. Even when the petition has been filed but that period prescribed for filing the petition has not elapsed, a motion to fundamentally amend same can still safely be filed. It only becomes disallowed when the time to file an election petition has expired. See OKEREKE V. YAR’DUA (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100) 95

For the purpose of an election petition, either parties have 14days each in proving their case. See paragraph 16(3) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Where either party to an election petition wants further particulars or the direction of the tribunal in the matter, such a party must come by way of a motion on notice at any time after entering an appearance but not later than 10 days after the filing of a reply specifying the direction of the court or the particulars he wants or prays for so that same will be set down for hearing where the court is satisfied with the application in this regard. See paragraph 17(1) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Where a party makes no application as stated above, such a party is deemed to be in no need of the court’s direction on that matter or any particulars. See paragraph 17(2) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

No. There is no specific place the hearing of a petition must take place before it will be valid. However, any such place chosen must be open and accessible to the public. The hearing of a petition must be done in an open tribunal or court. See paragraph 19 of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

Having filed your petition, you are to expect a notice from the electoral tribunal informing you of a time and place for the hearing of the petition. This notice will be delivered to the address supplied by you at least 5 days from the date fixed for its hearing. However, bear in mind that the place for the hearing will not be far from the place where the election held. See paragraph 20 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Although the service of court process must be done personally and submitted at the address provided for by the parties thereto, the pasting of an election petition hearing notice at the tribunal’s notice board will nevertheless constitute good service. See paragraph 20 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

As a result of the nature of an election petition and the need to dispense with it quickly postponement of the date of hearing is usually not allowed except where the tribunal deems otherwise or in exceptional circumstances. However the notice of that postponement must be communicated accordingly. See paragraph 23 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

In the event where an election petition tribunal is not competently constituted, the proceeding adjourned to the next day. This is because the hearing of an election petition is usually day to day. If circumstances dictates, the hearing of an election petition may be done on Sundays and public holidays. See paragraph 25 and 26 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Yes. However, the right of Mr. Steve Morgan to withdraw his petition is only available to him subject to the leave of the Tribunal. See paragraph 29 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Where the petitioners are more than one, no application for leave to withdraw the election petition will be granted by the court except all the petitioners agree to withdraw the petition. See paragraph 29(2) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

An application for leave to withdraw an election petition must be made in writing. It must be supported by a verifying affidavit which must state clearly the grounds why the leave to withdraw is sought. It must be signed by none other than the petitioner himself in the presence of the secretary. The application for leave to withdraw must be by way of motion on notice. See paragraph 29(3) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Although this may seem absurd, it is however not out of place for a party seeking the leave of court for this purpose to be required to swear an affidavit on oath stating that the reason for the withdraw of his petition is not as a result of any illegal agreement entered with the respondent. However where the reasons for the withdrawal is as a result of a legal agreement with the respondent or any party, such reason will be stated. See paragraph 30 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

If the petitioner dies before his petition is decided, the tribunal will strike it out from its Cause List. However any cost incurred by the petitioner before his death shall not abate. The petitioner will still be liable to pay them. See paragraph 33 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022.

The tribunal can only confirm that the petitioner is dead where the person claiming such, furnishes the tribunal and parties to the case with a notice, supported by the affidavit of two witnesses testifying to the death. The notice is usually given to the secretary who then turns it over to the court. The secretary is duty bound to also serve same on the parties to the case personally or cause the notice to be pasted on the tribunal’s notice board or any other place in the constituency as the tribunal may direct. See paragraph 33(3) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Where a party who is made a respondent of an election petition desires not to appear or challenge the petition, he is expected to file a notice of No Opposition to The Petition. Nevertheless, the filing of this notice will not prevent his name from appearing in the petition as a respondent. However, he cannot be made to appear or act as a party to the proceeding. See paragraph 34 of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022.

Where the court is satisfied that the petitioner has died; where the court is notified of the petitioner’s intention to withdraw the petition, or where the respondent notifies the court of his intention not to oppose the petition, then the secretary to the tribunal shall issue a Notice of Countermand of any hearing notice previously sent. See paragraph 35 of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

Where further particulars ordered are not furnished, the petitioner’s evidence with respect to those facts will not be acted upon by the court. See NWACHUKWU V. ENEOGWE (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 600) 629 at 635.

Before a court can decide whether or not there is an admission in the statement of defence or reply to a petition in respect to an averment in a statement of claim or petition, the entire pleadings of the parties as a whole must be considered. See TITILOYE V. OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 205) 519 at 532.

A petitioner who intends to rely on allotment of votes as an act of malpractice in an election petition is required to clearly plead same together with the particulars of the alleged allotment of votes. See CHIME V. ONYIA (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1124) 1 at 46.

The answer is no. The Electoral Act does not make it compulsory for a respondent to frontload copies of the documents he intends to rely on. See CHIME V. ONYIA (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1124) 1 at 51.

It is trite that averment in pleadings or petition proves nothing at all if not supported by evidence, unless it is admitted by the opposite side in a case. The averments are not evidence of matters averred therein. See INEC V. IFEANYI (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1174) 98 at 121.

Severance of pleadings involves applying to court to separate criminal allegations of fact from civil allegations of fact and applying the different standards of proof on each of the facts alleged. See GUNDIRI V. NYAKO (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 211 at 252 paras A-B.

The doctrine of severance of pleadings applies only when there is a clear and distinctive compartmentalization or separation of criminal allegations from those which are civil in nature. Where the pleadings are such that both are intertwined it will be impossible to do severance of criminal and civil allegations of non-compliance. See GUNDIRI V. NYAKO (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 211 at 252 paras A-B.

An application for the severance of a part of a party’s pleadings should be made to court by a formal application and not during the final address of the counsel to the party. This is so because the address of counsel does not possess the power to cure defects in either pleadings or evidence. See GUNDIRI V. NYAKO (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 211 at 252 paras A-B.

While it is true that the number of votes scored by each candidates should be stated in the petition as required by Paragraph 4(1)(c) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, it is the law and the courts have held that where the number of votes scored by the parties at the election are not in issue in a particular case, failure to state them is not sufficient to render such a petition incompetent. For instance where the petitioner contends that he was screened and nominated to contest the election but was unlawfully excluded, the issue of number of votes scored is not in issue in that case. See OWURU V. INEC (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 622) 210 at 212.

The answer is that such is prohibited by the rules of practice procedure. The attempt to state in the body of the address particulars of facts being evidence or to attach an annexure not earlier filed in the registry as pleadings nor tendered or adopted as evidence across the witness box, is not recognized by law. Such “depositions” in the address or “annexure” to the final address of a party in election petition proceedings will amount to counsel attempting to give evidence by way of address and both statute like the Evidence Act and judicial authorities do not permit for such an unlawful procedure of evidence. The courts have held in a spectrum of election cases as in the case of BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 that “the address of counsel, no matter how brilliant can never amount to evidence. In the case of YOYE V. OLUBODE (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 2) 118 at 123, the Supreme Court held; “The address of counsel is supposed to deal only with the evidence before the court” AUTO IMPORT EXPORT V. ADEBAYO (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 44.

Where allegation of non-compliance with Electoral Act is vaguely pleaded it can only attract general denial. In the case of ACN V. LAMIDO (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1303) 560 at 586-587, the petitioner averred thus “Your petitioner avers further that contrary to the 1st respondent’s guideline and Electoral Act 2010, the results of the election of Jigawa State were jettisoned and altered to suit the 1st Respondent” The court in reacting to this rather vague averment queried thus: “The way the results of the election in Jigawa State were jettisoned and altered to suit the 1st Respondent are very far from being clear from this paragraph. The Court of Appeal was therefore absolutely right, in my view, in describing the averments in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the appellant’s petition as generic, imprecise and incapable of supporting an allegation of non-compliance and can attract only general denial.” Where therefore a petitioner alleges the non-compliance or irregularity of an election, he must plead specific facts, acts, and events which would logically lead to the conclusion he seeks that the election was marred by either non-compliance or other electoral irregularity or malpractice.

An Election petition without reliefs is dead on arrival. Any such petition stands in clear breach of Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, as amended, which provides as follows: “An election petition under this Act shall;… (d) State clearly the facts of the election petition and the ground or grounds on which the petition is based and the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Paragraph 4(3)(a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, goes further to provide that the petition shall conclude with a prayer or prayers, as for instance, that the petitioner or one of the petitioners be declared validly elected or returned, having polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election or that the election may be declared nullified, as the case may be. These requirements of the Electoral Act are sacrosanct and as the court held in MOGHALU V. NGIGE (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 1 at 34; “By the foregoing provision, it is mandatory for a petitioner to state the relief he seeks from the tribunal. An election petition that does not state the relief it seeks from the tribunal is incurably defective. Life cannot be blown into it.” The appropriate decision for the tribunal to take in the absence of a relief in the petition is to strike it out. See- MUSTAPHA V. GAMAWA & ORS (2011) LPELR-9226.

It is trite that where a petitioner intends to rely on allotment of votes as an act of malpractice in an election petition, he is required to clearly plead same together with the particulars of the alleged allotment of votes. See - OGU V. EKWEREMADU (2005) 1 FWLR (Pt. 260) 1

In spite of the nature of election petition, an application to extend time may be allowed in the interest of justice even after the time ordinarily allowed for such application had lapsed. However, an application of this nature is not granted as a matter of course. For this application to succeed, the applicant must come by way of motion (except where notice is dispensed with by the court) supported by an affidavit stating clearly why the application is sought and why it ought to be granted. Any person who seeks an application of this nature bears the cost where it is eventually granted. See paragraph 45 (1-4) of the 1st Schedule Electoral Act 2022

No. Except where the court directs otherwise, an application for abridgment of time need not be on notice. See paragraph 45 (5) of the 1st schedule Electoral Act 2022

The answer is Yes. The President of the Court of Appeal may at any time declare a practice of the court as practice direction and such practice direction shall be regarded as part of the Court of Appeal Rules. Section 140(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 empowers the President of the Court of Appeal to issue such as the Practice Directions to be used by the Election Tribunals. See CHIME V. ONYIA (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1124) 1 at 35-36

The purport of the practice directions is to guide and regulate compliance with, and observance of, the rules governing the practice and procedures in election tribunals by expressly setting out the how and the when things are to be done. See ADAMS V. UMAR(2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 41 at 107

Yes. The Practice Direction has a constitutional flavor. It is not ultra vires the powers of the President of the Court of Appeal. The Practice Directions must be strictly obeyed, as they constitute condition precedent to the presentation and maintenance of an election petition. See BUHARI V. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 at 601

Non-compliance with the practice direction is fundamental as it vitiates all steps taken at the trial resulting in nullity. See NWANKWO V. YAR’DUA(2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518 at 590.

Pleadings would come to an end and be deemed closed after 5 days of the receipt of the respondents’ reply by the petitioner whether or not the petitioner’s reply was filed. See IKORO V. IZUNASO (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1130) 45 at 66 paras C-D