BREAKING: COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSES HON. PETER GYENDEN’S APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL/STATE HOUSES OF ASSEMBLY TRIBUNAL, JOS

By: Valentine Adese (JP),

The Appeal No: CA/J/EPT/PL/HR/04/2023, filed by Hon. Peter Gyengdeng Ibrahim, challenging the decisions of the National/ State houses of assembly tribunal sitting in Jos plateau State, has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal (CoA) Abuja Division for being devoid of merit.

Respondents in the Appeal were Fom Dalyop Chollom, the Labour Party LP(), INEC and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The Court of Appeal in its Judgment delivered on the 31^st of August, 2023, affirmed the decisions of the National and State Houses of Assembly Tribunal for Plateau State sitting in Jos, Plateau State.

The Court held that, the allusion made by Counsel to the Appellant to the breach of the right of the Appellant to fair hearing by the lower Court were baseless and totally misconceived.

Adding that, “Rather, it was the Counsel to the Appellant who wanted to draw a fast one on the other parties in the matter.

‘It must be understood that, the doctrine of fair hearing is not a “one way traffic concept” for the benefit of the party who first parrots it.

“It is not an abstract term available to a party at all times and in all circumstances,

“It means fairness to all the parties and fairness to the Court—Okorocha Vs Herwa Ltd (2000)”

In part the Court of Appeal held that, “This Appeal is totally devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. The decisions contained in the Rulings of the National and State Houses of Assembly Tribunal for Plateau State sitting in Jos, delivered in Petition No: EPT/PL/HR/01.2023 by Hon. Justice B. M. Tukur, Hon. Justice Omaka Elekwa and Hon. Justice O. A. Adetujoye on the 11^th of July, 2023 are affirmed.

“The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents are awarded the cost of this Appeal assessed at N100,000.00 each.

“These shall be the order of the Court”.

You would recall that, this an appeal against the decisions contained in the Rulings of the National and State Houses of Assembly Tribunal for Plateau State sitting in Jos delivered in Petition No: EPT/PL/HR/01/2023 by Hon. Justice B. M. Tukur, Hon. Justice Omaka Elekwo and Hon. Justice O. A. Adetujoye on the 11^th of July, 2023.

The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents commenced the action in the lower Court by a Petition filed on the 17^th of March, 2023, challenging the return of the Appellant by the 3^rd Respondent as the winner and member Elect for the office of House of Representatives for Barkinladi/Riyom Federal Constituency of Plateau State in the General Election held on the 25h of February, 2023.\

The 3rd Respondent the Appellant and the 4^th Respondent were the 1^st to the 3^rd Respondents respectively to the petition in the lower Court and they filed their separate responses to the petition.

The Appellant was the sponsored candidate of the 4^th Respondent in the election and the Appellant and the 4^th Respondent were represented by different Counsel.

In the course of hearing of the petition, and when it was time for the Appellant and 4^th Respondent to lead evidence in support of their respective defences, Counsel to the Appellant informed the lower Court that, the Appellant and 4^th Respondent had a common witness and that as such, the Appellant will rest his defence on the Petitioners’ case, as well as, the documents already tendered and further rely on the evidence of the witness to be called by the 4^th Respondent.

The Appellant and the 4^th respondent also relied on the same list of documents in their respective replies.

The witness adopted the said word for word written statement on oath he deposed to on the 25^th of April, 2023, in support of the Reply of the Appellant and gave evidence on the documents already tendered from the Bar by Counsel to the Appellant.

At the close of the evidence in chief of the witness, issues arose as to the order of cross-examination of the witness, whether he could be cross examined by the Counsel to the other respondents before the Counsel for the Petitioner, and on the right of Counsel to the Appellant to cross examine the witness.

The lower Court took arguments from Counsel to the parties on the issues and it delivered a considered Ruling.

It should be reiterated that, the Appellant was the 2^nd Respondent on the Petition.