Court considered whether the returning
officer had justification to cancel results at
one of the polling stations on the basis that
the voting at the said station had been grossly
marred by violence and malpractice.
Court held that there was no evidence to
prove that the disputed polling station had
been affected by violence.
Court accordingly tallied the votes at the
disputed polling station and set aside the
decision of the trial judge in nullifying the
election, court declared the 1 st respondent as
validly elected and awarded costs to him as
against the appellant and second respondent.