Address of service

• Pages: 12-13

12

22. Whether a body corporate can qualify as occupier.

“A body corporate in law is a juristic person having legal personalities and it can be

an occupier of a premises. In Volume 4 of the words and phrases legally defined

referred to supra, it has been stated that: “The expression ‘occupier’ includes any

number of persons and a body corporate.” (see page 15 thereof).” Per Muhammad,

J.C.A., in Laban-Kowa v. Alkali (1999) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 620) 601 at 611.

23. Whether petitioner must furnish name of occupier of address for service

under Decree 3 (1999).

“The other leg of the issue relates to non-compliance with the provisions of the

Decree especially the issue of the non-provision of occupier’s address. We have

noticed that at the tip end of the petition, the appellant gave as his address for service

within 5km of the judicial division at No. 4 Government House Road, Jalingo. I feel

that has satisfied the requirement of the Decree even if it has not been stated in a

separate column meant for that service could comfortably be effected there. The

Tribunal is therefore wrong to have held otherwise as that is mere technicality on

form and not on substance. Courts are always enjoined to disregard technicalities

where it will defeat the course of justice. The alleged non-compliance with the

provisions of the Decree in this aspect is not fatal and should not guard a reason to

dismiss the petition or to make the petition incompetent.” Per Sanusi, J.C.A., in

Waziri v. Danboyi (1999) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 598) 243 at 248.

(3) ADDRESS OF SERVICE

24. Effect of failure of election petitioners to state the name of the

occupiers of his address for service in the petition.

“The effect of failure to state an address for service and its occupier is stated in

paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 5 to the Decree. The petition shall be deemed not to

have been filed, unless the Tribunal otherwise orders. In Ngelizana v. Nindi

(supra) the Court considered the provision of Section 100(4) of the Electoral

Act, 1962 which is in pari materia with paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 5 to the

Decree and held that an election petition, which did not include the name of the

occupier, is deemed not to have been filed. See also Enebi v. Yachim (1965)

N.N.L.R. 26. Clearly the provision of Paragraph 5(4) is mandatory and the effect

of non compliance with the said provision is that the petition shall be deemed not

to have been filed. Where a petition is deemed not to have been filed, the only

option open to the Tribunal is to strike out the petition. The Tribunal was therefore

right to hold that the petition was not properly before the Tribunal. My answer to

the first issue is therefore in the affirmative. Failure to state the name of the

occupier of the address for service is fatal to the petition.” - Per Mohammed,

J.C.A., in Kaliel v. Aliero Suit No.CA/K/EPGT/2/99; (1999) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

597) 139 at 149.

Paras. 22-25