The Allied Peoples Movement and its governorship candidate in the last general election in Ogun State, Adekunle Akinlade have formally appealed the judgement of the state election petitions tribunal at the court of appeal in Ibadan.
In the notice of appeal which was obtained by our correspondent in Abeokuta on Thursday, APM described the judgement by the tribunal as being against the weight of pieces of evidence presented before it during the trial of APM and Akinlade’s petition in the state.
Akinlade and APM had challenged the victory of the All Progressives Congress and its governorship candidate, Dapo Abiodun at the March 9, 2019 governorship election.
The three-member tribunal led by Justice Yusuf Halilu had in its judgement delivered on September 14, dismissed the petition filed by Akinlade and APM for being incompetent and lacking in merit.
However, among the grounds listed by Akinlade in the notice of appeal included claims that the judgement of the tribunal was not based on the issues canvassed by the petitioners, especially in relation to the respondent’s academic qualifications.
Part of the notice read, “Take notice that the appellants herein being dissatisfied with the decision as contained in the judgment of the trial tribunal by Hon. Justice Yusuf Halilu (chairman), Hon. Justice C.C Okaa (member 1) and Hon. Kadi M.L Omar (member 2), delivered on the 14th day of September 2019 in petition no: EPT/OG/GOV/01/2019: between Adekunle Abdulkabir Akinlade and Anor v. Independent National Electoral Commission and Ors. doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3, and will, at the hearing of the Appeal, seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4.
“The learned trial judges of the lower tribunal erred in law, contradicted and misdirected themselves when having found at page 29 and 30 of the ruling in respect of the 2nd respondent’s preliminary objection.
“The learned trial judges of the lower tribunal erred in law and thereby denied the appellants the right to fair hearing, when having made positive findings at page 29 and 30 of the ruling in favour of the appellants, they completely derogated from same at page 32 and 33 of the ruling, in consequence of which the appellants were unable to take benefit of the favourable findings.”