LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW – Selection of Traditional Rulers – Computation of Majority Votes When Disputed Votes Are Excluded
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There was evidence that out of 11 king-makers stipulated, 10 including disputed ones were present at elections; undisputed evidence was that 7 persons voted for appellant and 3 for respondent; stipulated quorum was 7; this means that even if 3 disputed king-makers were ignored or disregarded there was required quorum of 7 selectors at election; again even if votes of 3 king-makers were disregarded out of 7 votes cast for appellant, he would still end up with 4 valid votes as against only 3 of respondent.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"There was evidence that out of the 11 king-makers stipulated in Paragraph 3 of Exhibit 6, 10 king-makers including the disputed ones were present at the elections. There was undisputed and unchallenged evidence that at the end of the voting, the result was that 7 persons voted for the appellant and 3 for the respondent. According to paragraph 6 (3) of Exhibit 6, the stipulated quorum at the election was 7. This in effect means that even if the 3 disputed king-makers were ignored or disregarded there was the required quorum of 7 selectors at the election. Again even if the votes of the 3 king-makers were disregarded out of the 7 votes cast for the appellant, he would still end up with 4 valid votes as against only 3 of the respondent."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When disputed kingmakers’ participation is challenged, courts conduct hypothetical exclusion analysis: exclude disputed kingmakers and recalculate to determine if: quorum still met, and selection outcome unchanged. Here: 10 kingmakers present (including 3 disputed), quorum required was 7, appellant received 7 votes, respondent received 3 votes. Analysis: (1) Exclude 3 disputed kingmakers: 7 undisputed kingmakers remain = quorum met. (2) Exclude disputed votes from appellant’s total: appellant 7 minus 3 disputed = 4 valid votes; respondent still only 3 votes. Result: Appellant still wins with 4 vs. 3—outcome unchanged. This serves: determining whether disputed participation materially affected outcome, upholding valid selections despite technical challenges, and focusing on substance over form. The principle: disputed participation doesn’t invalidate selection if, upon excluding disputed votes, the result remains unchanged—quorum met and winner still prevails. This prevents: technical invalidation of valid selections, setting aside proper outcomes over immaterial irregularities, and requiring new selection when outcome would be same. Courts should: identify disputed participants, exclude them hypothetically, recalculate quorum and votes, and determine if outcome changes. If outcome unchanged, selection stands despite dispute.