In considering whether the tribunal or court has jurisdiction to entertain an action or petition, it is the petitioner’s claim as endorsed on the petition that the court has to consider and not the respondent’s reply to the petition. See ADAMS V. UMAR (2009) 59 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 41 at 124 paras C-D.
The answer is no. The courts and tribunals are creatures of statutes. Their jurisdiction is defined and limited by the Constitution, the grundnorm and the statuses which create them. Parties cannot individually or by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court where a court has none. See EMEJE V. POSITIVE (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1174) 48 at 76-77 paras H-A.
The answer is no. Clearly electoral offences are criminal prosecution and are not within the jurisdiction of election petition tribunals. See AGOMUO V. OGUNWUEGBU (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 599) 405. What the Election Tribunals are now empowered to do where pleadings in election petitions disclose criminal acts is to recommend to the Commission the prosecution of the alleged culprits in courts of competent jurisdiction.
Once the petitioner’s claim has divested the trial or lower tribunal of jurisdiction, the entire proceedings constitute a nullity and as an election petition being sui generis; the proper order to make is not just striking out but that of dismissal as same would not have another chance in time of being re-instituted. See ORJI V. UGOCHUKWU (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1161) 207 at 282-284.
The answer is no. Just as election petition matters are sui generis, election petition tribunals are special in nature and in jurisdiction. They are not all-purpose courts and only treat matters arising from elections and within the limited time appointed for it. ISICHEI V. INEC (2009) LPELR-4338
The answer is no. An election tribunal is not the venue to raise and canvass matters which touch on the interpretation of the Constitution. Such should go to the High Court or Federal High Court. See ADAMS V. UMAR (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 41 at 95-96
It is the law that everything connected with the process leading to the election including the actual election and its aftermath comes within the jurisdiction of the election tribunal. That will stem the tide of parties trying to pursue election related matters in parallel courts which will only result in confusion. See AKEREDOLU V. MIMIKO (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 402 at 473-474
Where a candidate who contested an election and won is refused certificate of return but the certificate is rather issued to another person who was not a candidate at the election, the proper forum to ventilate the grievance is not the High Court but the Election Petition Tribunal. See WAMBAI V. DONATUS (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223 at 252.
The jurisdiction of an election tribunal to deal with election petitions is peculiar and of a very special nature different, in many instances different from what obtains in ordinary civil proceedings. See MAITSIDAU V. CHIDARI (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1114) 553 at 570 para H
The answer is no. The tribunal clearly does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the term of office of any person elected to the office of Governor has ceased. Its duty is to determine whether the person was validly elected into that office. OBI V. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565 at 651 paras G-H.
The respondent has an absolute right to challenge the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal to entertain any election petition at any stage of the proceedings in the hearing of the petition and the court has the duty to hear the objections. See BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 423 at 488 paras A-E
The answer is no. Where elections have been concluded and a winner declared, any claim that is a pre-election matter in nature falls within the jurisdiction of the election tribunal and not the High Court. See WAMBAI V. DONATUS (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223 at 257-258 paras G-A. But where a case that would legally impact on a candidate’s capacity to contest a particular election has been instituted in the State or Federal High Court before the conduct of the election, the decision of the court in such a case when delivered whether during or after the election, would still have its effect on the candidate if given against him.
Where a candidate who contested election and won is refused certificate of return but the certificate was rather issued to another person who was not a candidate at the election the proper forum to ventilate the grievance is the Election Tribunal and not the High Court. See WAMBAI V. DONATUS (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223 at 251-252 paras G-A
The tribunal is under duty to strike out the allegation affecting persons whose conducts have been put into question but who are not joined in the petition. UZODINMA V. UDENWA (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 854) 303 at 344-345 paras F.
EDITORIAL: This is what the position of the law has been all the while it was allowed to join any particular electoral officer of the Commission as party to the petition if the facts disclose that the officer personally committed the acts constituting the facts of any particular allegation notwithstanding that the Commission as an institution still undertakes the officer’s defense. It is doubtful that this position of striking out the names of persons accused but not made parties in the petition would still remain credible and valid where the Commission’s officers are so named. This said in the face of the provision of Section 133(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which provides that: If the petitioner complains of the conduct of electoral officer, a presiding or returning officer, it shall not be necessary to join such officers or persons notwithstanding the nature of the complaint and the Commission shall, in this instance be –
a. made a respondent; or b. deemed to be defending the petition for itself and on behalf of its' officers or such other persons.
Generally, the effect of an incompetent petition is that it automatically divests the tribunal of jurisdiction and brings the matter to an end. It is not mere procedural irregularity or defect. It is a matter of jurisdiction. EMEJE V. POSITIVE (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1174) 48 at 71 paras G-A.
The answer is no. Neither the Supreme Court nor Court of Appeal is seized with any jurisdiction to entertain the matter under the various legislations of court. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively can only appropriately exercise jurisdiction where there is a live issue at the tribunal. Where the tribunal had not concluded the matter before the expiration of the tenure provided by the law, proceedings can no longer by any stretch of the imagination be re-opened for fresh evidence to be taken through the witness box. See OKE V. MIMIKO (NO. 1) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 225 at 264-265 Nevertheless, it would appear that the scenario would be different if what the petitioner is appealing against is in fact the decision of the tribunal that time had ran out on it.
The answer is yes. The Federal High Court (not the election tribunal) has jurisdiction to entertain and determine issues of irregularity and invalidity of Party Primary Elections for the nomination of the Candidates among the Aspirants. The jurisdiction of the court in party affairs is limited to where the complaint is about the conduct of the primaries for the selection/nomination of a candidate. For instance if the aspirant complains of rigging or similar malpractices. This is an exception to the rule that the nomination of a party’s candidate is the exclusive preserve of the internal affairs political party and not subject to adjudication. Because, the truth is that the process of the general election actually do start with the party primaries. This exception is covered by Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 See ARDO V. NYAKO (2014) 5 S.C. (Pt. 1) 1 at 55.