IGHODALO & ANOR V. INEC & 2 ORS
(2025) JELR 114231 (SC)
Supreme Court
•
SC.CV/536/2025
•
10 Jul 2025
•
Nigeria
Coram
Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC,
Tijjani Abubakar, JSC,
Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JSC,
Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC,
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC
Appearances
Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN, Kenneth E. Mozia, SAN, A. J. Owonikoko, SAN, Rotimi
Oguneso, SAN, Selekeowei Larry, SAN, A.T. Kehinde, SAN, Oluwole lyamu, SAN,
Olusegun Jolaowo, SAN, O. M. Atoyebi, SAN, with them, Oladipo Osinowo, Esq.
Olajide Salami, Esq. Sonia Ernest-Egbuna, Esq. Godspower Emereonye, Esq.
and Deborah Idakwoyi For Appellant(s)
Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, A.M. Aliyu, SAN, T.M. Inuwa SAN, Alhassan A. Umar SAN,
S.O Ibrahim, SAN, Wendy Kuku, SAN, Uchenna Njoku, SAN, with them, Bashir M.
Abubakar, Esq. MaryFrances Orji, Esq. Emmanuel Agabi, Esq. and Anthony
Onyeri, Esq. for 1st Respondent.
Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, Chief Offiong E. B. Offiong, SAN, Festus Kayode
Idepefo, SAN, Roy O.U. Nwaeze SAN, with them, Edward Erhinure, Esq. Lynda
Chuba-Ikpeazu, Dr. Obinna Onya, Esq. Julius Mba, Esq. David ltyonyiman, and
Maryam Agafi Lawan for 2nd Respondent.
E.C. Ukala, SAN, J.O. Asoluka, SAN, Henry A. Bello, SAN with then Oyebu J. Iheko
and Dike Udenwa for 3rd Respondent.
Judgement
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On the 21st September, 2024, the 1st Respondent conducted election into the office of the Governor of Edo State. The 1st Respondent declared and returned the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the election with 291, 667 votes while the 1st Appellant scored 247, 274 votes.
The Appellants filed a petition challenging the return of the 2nd Respondent, which was predicated on two (2) grounds: that the election was invalid by reason of noncompliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022; the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.
At the pre-hearing sessions of the petition, the Respondents challenged the competence of the petition on the ground that the two (2) grounds are inconsistent and contradictory and so, incompetent. Also, that the Appellants did not seek the relief for the nullification of the entire election which the Tribunal was empowered to grant in the eve…
Cookie Policy