The answer is yes. In an election petition, the rights and duties of either petitioner or respondents are conferred by statute. Either side has locus to take objection in law to any failure by either party to comply with the provisions of the law. See UZODINMA V. UDENWA (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 854) 303 at 345 para H.
Any allegation of fact made in the petition pertaining to a party whose name was struck out becomes irrelevant and incompetent, no longer part of the case to be decided by the Tribunal. See ELUEMOH V. OBIDIGWE (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 369 at 389-390
The answer is no. The position of the law is well settled that in an election petition case, no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties and the court may in every cause or matter deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before it. See** BELLO V. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342 at 390**.
Being that the tribunal is not vested with criminal jurisdiction and so does not try allegations of electoral offences, the tribunal has a duty to strike out the names of those persons who are not electoral officials but against whom criminal allegations were pleaded against in the election petition. See** UZODINMA V. UDENWA (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 854) 303 at 344-345 paras F-A **
Having struck out the name of a party, no evidence incriminating or indicting them should be entertained let alone used in the judgment. Any such evidence should be discarded by the court or tribunal. A tribunal entertaining such evidence or using same in the judgment commits a very grave error in law. It will actually be required that parties in the case would need to amend their subsequent processes to reflect the fact that that party is no longer a party to the case by making the title and heading of their processes to not include the name of the party that had been struck out to be included. See HARUNA V. MODIBO (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 487 at 556-557.
The answer is no. Persons cannot just be lumped together as respondents in a representative capacity. Lumping individual persons together as a group for the purpose of being sued, leaves them as non-juristic entity over whom the court would not have jurisdiction to preside over a matter against them. The plaintiff or petitioner would first need to secure an order of the tribunal or court to sue them in a representative capacity. See** KHALIL V. YAR’DUA (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 446 at 484-485**.
The Supreme Court has held that the answer is no. In the case of** BUHARI V. OBASANJO** (2004) 1 EPR 112 at 129-130, the apex court held thus; “In answer to this question, this court categorically said NO. In the leading judgment by Uwaifo JSC in the case, he said ‘it is manifest that Section 133 of the Act places no obligation on a petitioner(s) to make any candidate who lost an election or any political party, whether of a candidate elected or returned or of a candidate who lost or which may not field any candidate for the particular seat, a respondent other than the statutory respondent envisaged under subsection (2) as identified in this judgment. As a matter of strict adherence to procedure, all such persons or political parties can neither be respondents nor are they necessary parties.”
If consent is withheld by the Attorney General of the Federation, the Government of the Federation will indemnify the electoral officer against any cost which may be awarded against him by the tribunal in respect of the election. **See Paragraph 51 (2) of the1st schedule Electoral Act 2022 **
If a particular respondent feels that he or she is improperly joined, it is the prerogative of that party or person to move the court or tribunal to strike out his or its name. The petitioner can also move the tribunal to strike out a respondent that he/she feels is no longer wanted or required. See OBASANJO V. YUSUF (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 877) 144 at 186 paras E-H
The answer is no. In the case of** ALBISHIR V. INEC** (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1130) 1 at 10, the court held as follows; “Surely, a party who on his own showing admitted that he was wrongfully excluded from the election, cannot be in a position to challenge the declaration of result and return by the returning officer. This is merely drawing red herring across the track.” The law as above-stated is settled on the basis that a petitioner who has admitted that he was unlawfully excluded from the elections has clearly implied that he did not “participate” in the elections. The ground for challenging the Declaration of Result is that the candidate or party doing so must have participated in the elections in order to challenge its result. Having admitted exclusion from participation, a candidate cannot then turn around to contest the Declaration of the results of the election or to have himself declared winner of the elections which he did not participate in. The only option open to him would be to pray for a nullification of the election itself on grounds of his unlawful exclusion.
The petitioner is not obliged to join as respondent a person who also lost the election being complained of. But any person including a political party who qualified under the Electoral Act, will be regarded as a statutory respondent and may be joined as a respondent in such petition. See OBASANJO V. BUHARI (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 510 at 559-560
The answer is no. Where a statute, as in this case the Electoral Act, has specifically provided for parties in an action, the common law principles of joinder of parties will no longer be applicable. This is because the statute by its specific provisions has stopped or blocked parties not mentioned therein. See **YUSUFU V. OBASANJO **(2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 554 at 617.
The answer is no. A political party is a corporate body that can sue or be sued. The law gives political parties independent recognition and rights, though a candidate and his political party can file a petition together. Yet, a political party and its members cannot be held to be one and the same. See** OBASANJO V. BUHARI (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 510 at 559-560.**
A. The answer is no. To state that one is a person who had a right to contest at an election is not enough to ground his locus standi to bring an election petition, he must go ahead to state how he acquired the said right. See** EGOLUM V. OBASANJO (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 611) 355 at 385. **
Yes. The right of the candidate to institute the petition must be distinguished from his ability to prove the petition. Thus, he can institute the petition without the political party that sponsored his election. See BUHARI V. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 at 6606 paras G-H.
The determining factor, under the general principle of law, when the issue of joinder party is being considered usually, are;- Whether the issues that call for determination cannot be effectually and completely settled unless the party sought to be joined is made a party. That his interest will be irreparably prejudiced if he is not made a party. These are the factors considered and accepted in the case of** BELLO V. INEC** (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342 at 417. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether those factors under the general principles of law would apply in an election petition in which the matter of who can be party has been statutorily settled. See section 133(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022. While there is no doubt that even the referenced statutory provision seem to have factored in the general principle of law, but it is so only to the narrow extent embraced by the state – participation in the election or the statutory duty of implementing the judgment orders of the Tribunal or court.
The answer is yes. It is necessary to join the electoral body where imputations are made against them. Even where there are no accusations of impropriety leveled against it, is apt to join it to secure its obedience to the final order the court may make. See BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 423 at 482.
Where a person is not a party to an election petition case but his interest is in issue, there are two options open to him; The person may stay put and decide to abide by the judgment of the trial court, or Apply to same trial court or tribunal for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal within the time prescribed for appealing against the judgment or after the expiration of that time, apply to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal against the judgment as a person having an interest in the matter. **BELLO V. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342 at 388 **
A. No. Your position in the party notwithstanding, you cannot seek such redress if any in your name. An election petition may only be presented by Chief Godknows himself or by the party in its own name regardless of the disposition of Godknows. Section 133(1) Electoral Act 2022
NO. As long as the purpose of the suit is to challenge the result of the election, Doris Nwanne who works as an electoral officer of INEC cannot be made a party to the suit. However, the Independent National Electoral Commission for which Doris Nwanne works can be made a respondent therein. SECTION 133(3) Electoral Act 2022; Buhari V INEC (2008) 4NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 at 654; Nevertheless, paragraph 51(1) of the1st schedule Electoral Act 2022, makes it possible that where an election petition complains of the conduct of any official of INEC such officer can be joined in the election petition as a necessary party. However the officer of INEC in this regards is not at liberty to decline from opposing the petition, that is, he/she cannot refuse to file a Respondent’s process opposing the Petition or denying liability, except with the written consent of the Attorney General of the Federation.
The only persons regarded as necessary parties to an election petition matter are: a) A candidate at the election b) A political party which participated at the election MOGHALU V. NGIGE (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 1 at 27
Where the necessary parties whose interest would be affected were not joined, after striking out the faulty paragraphs, the necessary respondent whose election is being challenged and the officials whose conducts are being complained of and who have been made parties, become parties in the surviving paragraphs. See YAMMEDI V. ZAREWA (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1204) 58 at 89-90.
The answer is yes. The provisions of Section 133(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 clearly states that “a Candidate in an election” can file an election petition. See WAZIRI V. DANBOYI (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 598) 239 at 246-247 paras G-D.
No. Once it is shown that a person was not a candidate at the election he cannot be validly joined as a respondent in the election petition as there is no legal basis upon which he can be challenged by the petition. The only other person who can be made a party in an election petition, without him having participated in the election as a candidate or political party, is the Electoral Commission who may be called upon to defend its role, and also as one that would be affected, one way or the other, and as an implementer of the final verdict of the election tribunal. See Section 133(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022. See also ELUEMOH V. OBIDIGWE (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 369 at 388 paras F-G.