This is an appeal against the decision of the Kaduna State National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal. The petitioner brought election petition against the respondents for the following reliefs:-

The facts or grounds on which the petition was founded as can be gathered from the petition are, the appellant sought to be sponsored by the People Democratic Party by participating in the primary election for the nomination of the party's candidate for the House of Representative for the Zaria Federal Constituency against the third respondent and one Abdullahi Khalil and that he was successful with a score of 999 votes against third respondent's score of 88 votes and other contestant had only 9 votes. Consequent upon victory, the appellant was presented by the 2nd respondent to the first respondent. Independent National Electoral Commission for screening with a view contesting the election into the House of Representatives for Zaria Federal Constituency scheduled for 20th February, 1999, on its platform.

The first respondent failed to screen and clear the appellant to contest the election apparently on ground that third respondent produced a letter from the "National Secretariat of their party sponsoring the third respondent as the candidate of the party for the election. The appellant too produced two letters from party's National Secretariat denying the candidature of the third respondent and "affirming the candidacy of the appellant. Nevertheless first respondent proceeded to screen and clear third respondent to contest the said election on the ticket of the second respondent.

And that the third respondent was not educated up to the secondary school level as prescribed by the electoral law.

The petition did not specify the candidate who contested the election into the House of Representative for Zaria Federal Constituency nor their respective scores. The petition equally did not expressly state the person who was returned as the elected representative for the Federal Constituency.

The third respondent, after putting in his conditional memorandum of appearance, filed a motion on notice, raising preliminary objection to the competence of the petition and the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain it and urged that the petition be dismissed or struck out. The motion on notice was supported by affidavit and further affidavit. The appellant deposed to a counter affidavit in which inter alia he averred that the affidavit in support of the motion on notice was incurably defective and consequently the motion on notice was incompetent. To the affidavits, certain documents marked Exhibits 1, 2, 2A, 3, B, C and D were attached.

The tribunal entertained argument on the motion after which it gave a ruling dismissing the petition. Dissatisfied with the ruling the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.