Nsima Ekere & Anor vs. H.E Udom Emmanuel & Ors

*Court Proceedings and Case Information Sheet one (1)*

Appearances

Petitioners (Obong Nsima Ekere hereinafter referred to as ONE & APC)

J S Okutepa, SAN
Prof E Ojukwu, SAN
Victor Iyanam, Esq
Edet Bassey, Esq
Ubong Offiong, Esq


1st Respondent (HE, Udom Emmanuel)

Dr O Ikpeazu, SAN
Chief C Uche, SAN
Chief Asam Asam, SAN
Solomon Umoh, SAN
Utibe Nwoko, Esq
Nwachukwu, Ibegbu, Esq
Uwemedimo Nwoko, Esq
Ini Ememobong, Esq
Harrison Okoro, Esq

2nd Respondent (PDP)

T Oyetibo, SAN
U Udom, SAN
G A Umoh, Esq
Samuel Akpabio, Esq
D Jonathan, Esq
Emmanuel Akpan, Esq
P Mgbeoma, Esq
Linus Utuk, Esq
Uboho Eyo, Esq

3 & 4 Respondent (INEC & REC)

Silva Ogwemoh, SAN

*************************
Activity 1 - Motion to amend Petition

Counsel to the Petitioner, Okutepa, SAN moved a motion praying the court to grant them leave to amend the petition as filed by the petitioner and to deem the amended and exhibited petition as being properly filed (that is to replace the erroneous petition which will be withdrawn where the prayer per the motion is granted. The application for amendment was to change the word "and", employed in the original Petition to the word "and" in the amended petition.

The Respondents were however opposed to the application and relying on the case of Abubakar vs. Yar'Adua reported in LPELR 51 SC. 23- 24 B wherein the court highlighted the effect and difference between the words, "and" and "or". It was their principal argument in opposing the motion that the time reserved by the Constitution and the schedule to the Electoral Act on the procedure before the Tribual for the petitioner to amend his petition bas elapsed.

The 2nd Respondent (PDP) also opposed the motion. Counsel to the 2nd Respondent relied on Olusola Oke vs. Mimiko wherein the court held that an amendment introducing a new ground cannot be brought after the expiration of the time limited for the presentation of the petition by the law.

The counsel to the 3&4 Respondents also opposed the application stating that there is no fact to ground the application being granted in good faith and within the provisions of the law.

The Petitioner however further urged the court to grant their prayers relying on South Atlantic Petroleum LTD. vs. Ministry of Petroleum Resources (2014) NWLR (Pt. 139) @ 24. Insisting that the correction sought is only as to form and does not affect the substance of the petition.

*************************

The court at the close of submissions by counsel deferred ruling on the application to May 30, 2019.