The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in three appeals and a cross-appeal filed in connection with the dispute over the governorship election held in Edo State on September 21, 2024, in which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
A three-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice M.A. Danjuma and sitting in Abuja on Thursday, informed the lawyers to the parties—after taking their final arguments—that judgment has been reserved to a date to be communicated to them.
The appeals heard included one filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Asue Ighodalo (marked: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025), and a cross-appeal by the APC and Okpebholo (marked: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025).
The other two appeals heard were: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025, filed by the Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje, and CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025, filed by Dr. Bright Enabulele and the Accord Party (AP).
In their arguments, lawyers for the appellants urged the court to allow their appeals and overturn the judgment of the election tribunal delivered on April 2, while counsel for the respondents asked the court to affirm the tribunal’s decision and dismiss the appeals.
Counsel to Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), urged the court to uphold the tribunal’s judgment, which affirmed his client’s victory and found that the PDP and Ighodalo failed to prove their allegations that the election was marred by irregularities.
Ikpeazu argued that the petition and the appeal amounted to an academic exercise. He noted that the appellants conceded at the tribunal that even if the votes they claimed were wrongly added were deducted, Okpebholo and the APC still secured the majority of valid votes.
Contrary to the appellants’ claim that the serial numbers of ballot papers were missing from Form EC25B, Ikpeazu contended that the form does not include a provision for serial numbers. Rather, it contains spaces for information about the quantity of materials received and returned.
He pointed out that Form EC40A, which the appellants tendered at the tribunal, clearly showed the serial numbers of ballot papers. He also noted that although the appellants referenced Form EC25D in their petition, they failed to tender it during the trial.
Ikpeazu further argued that ward collation officers are not bound by results uploaded to IREV in cases of over-voting. He also asked the court to allow the cross-appeal filed by Okpebholo and the APC and to dismiss the main appeal.
Similarly, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) for the APC and Kanu Agabi (SAN) for INEC supported the call for dismissal of the appeals and affirmation of the tribunal’s decision.
Ukala argued that, under Sections 73(2) and 137 of the Electoral Act 2022, a petitioner alleging non-compliance must present witnesses from all affected polling units to prove their case. He added, “Where there is improper collation, you still need to call witnesses polling unit by polling unit.”
He noted that Ighodalo and the PDP failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. Out of the 19 witnesses called by the petitioners, only five were polling unit agents—despite complaints about irregularities in 765 polling units.
Ukala also emphasized that Form EC25D, where serial numbers should appear, was not produced by the appellants, despite their reliance on it. Instead, they erroneously relied on Form EC25B.
In response, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), counsel to Ighodalo and the PDP, urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the tribunal’s ruling. He argued that the tribunal misunderstood the nature of the non-compliance alleged by the appellants.
He stated that the absence of serial numbers on Form EC25B was in breach of Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022. “The tribunal said we required evidence of polling agents or witnesses to prove how the forms were filled or not filled. That was not our case. Our case was that Form EC25B did not contain the serial numbers,” he explained.
Emukpoeruo also rejected the tribunal’s finding that the documents submitted by his clients were “dumped” on the court. He argued that oral evidence was not required in their case, as their petition did not challenge the conduct of the election itself but rather the discrepancies between polling unit results and the collated ward-level results.
After hearing all arguments, the panel, led by Justice Danjuma, announced that judgment has been reserved and will be delivered on a date to be communicated to the parties.
Evidence And Trial Proceedings, Pleadings And Damages, Civil Appeals — All In Civil Litigation Serial Volumes 4–6!
4. Evidence and Proceedings at Trial in Civil Litigation — Governing Principles 5. Pleadings, Reliefs and Measures of Damages — with Precedents 6. Civil Appeal at Court of Appeal and Supreme Court — with Precedents "Civil Litigation Serial is designed to be an indispensable reference for lawyers engaged in civil litigation practice," said Basil Momodu Esq., the author of the series. Call 07051822705 to get your copies today! ______________________________________________________________________ From Constitutionalism To Federalism And "Speaking Truth To Power": Get Your Copies Of Prof. Ozekhome's Books Tackling Nigeria's Critical Issues 
For Enquiries: 📞 +234 704 044 9375 | +234 814 813 4773 | +234 816 872 3532 ✉️ educodexl@gmail.com
______________________________________________________________________Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!
To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
