Address in election petition and name of occupier

• Pages: 5-12

5

be expected to regard them as parties directly affected by the appeal particularly

as they are not seeking in this appeal to have the 5th to 56th struck off the

petition. The parties directly affected by the appeal are the 3rd and 4th respondents

to the petition (as appellants) and the petitioners (as respondents). That has

been adequately explained in the course of the resolution of this appeal. I find

the preliminary objection to be without merit and overrule it.” Per Uwaifo, J.S.C.,

in Buhari v. Yusuf (2003) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 841) 446 at 504 - 505.

(2) ADDRESS IN ELECTION PETITION AND NAME OF OCCUPIER

10. Compliance with paragraph 5(4) schedule 5 of Decree of 1999.

“In the natural course of human events, the petitioner may well be residing in his

own house or estate. In that event his address may well be that for service and he

becomes the occupier. But he must give the name of the occupier as the law requires.

See: Kaliel v. Aliero & 11 Ors. (1999) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 597) 139. I have read and

examined the petition in this case as borne by the record of proceedings and I am

convinced that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirement of the law. He tried to

present an address for service, but did not state the occupier of the address of

Schedule 5 of Decree No. 5 of 1999 as the address for service and the name of the

occupier must be separately and distinctly stated. Paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 5 of

the Decree is instructive. It states:- “If an address for service and its occupier are

not stated as specified in sub paragraph (4) of this paragraph, the petition shall be

deemed not to have been filed unless the election Tribunal otherwise orders.” Per

Rowland, J.C.A., in Barau v. Dansadau (1999) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 632) 655 at 659

- 660.

11. Compliance with statute providing for an occupier to be mentioned.

“On the 2nd issue formulated by the appellant, I will answer it this way, although the

facts of all the cases cited in the issue are basically distinguishable from the appeal

on hand, yet the fundamental legal point in the decision is same that is; where a

statute has made provision for the name of occupier of a given premises or thing to

be mentioned, compliance thereof can only be seen where the name of such occupier

has clearly and unambiguously been stated as required in the statute. No more no

less. See Sobamowo v. Federal Public Trustee (1970) 1 All N.L.R 257; Akpiri v.

W.A.A.C. 14 W.A.C.A. 195; Okedare v. Hanid (1955) 15 W.A.C.A. 17 at 19;

Queen v. St. Pancras Assessment Committee (1877) 2 Q.B.D., 581 and Kaliel v.

Aliero (supra).” Per Muhammad, J.C.A., in Laban-Kowa v. Alkali (1999) 9 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 620) 601 at 612.

12. Content of an Election Petition.

“This Court is required, as it were, to choose between being bound by the clear

provisions of a statute and quest to do substantial justice. I say this, my Lords, because

paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Decree No. 3 of 1999 hereinafter referred to as

Address in Election Petition and name of occupier Paras. 9-12