Strict compliance with statutory requirements in election petitions is mandatory, and failure results in dismissal.

Wong Siong Tung J:

Brief Backgrounds

[1] The Petitioner was one of the candidates who contested in the parliamentary election for the Parliamentary constituency of Putatan (P 173) (the said Constituency) in the State of Sabah for which election, the advance polling was held on 15 November 2022 and the general polling was held on 19 November 2022.

[2] After completion of the counting of the votes casted by the electorates and official addition of the votes, the returning officer declared the 1st Respondent as the candidate having been elected as the member of Parliament for the said Constituency with the majority of 124 votes over the Petitioner.

[3] The statement of the election of the 1st Respondent was gazetted via PU(B) 619/2022 on 14 December 2022 pursuant to reg 27 of the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981. The statement of the poll in respect of the election for the said Constituency as gazetted was tabulated as follows:

The Petition And Grounds

[4] On 29 December 2022, the Petitioner presented the election petition herein, seeking this election Court to determine that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected as the member of Parliament for the said Constituency and to declare the said election held on 19 November 2022 null and void.

[5] The Election Petition was presented upon the grounds under s 32(a) the Election Offences Act 1954 that is, there was general bribery and under s 32(b) thereunder, that is there was non-compliance with the written law relating to the conduct of the election.

The 1st Respondent's Application To Strike Out Petition

[6] By a Notice of application dated 13 February 2023 (Encl 27), the 1st Respondent applied to strike out the petition herein on the following grounds:

(a) the Petitioner failed to comply with r 3(1) and (2) of Election Petition Rules 1954 ;

(b) the Petitioner failed to comply with r 9 of the Election Petition Rules 1954 ;

(c) the Petitioner failed to comply with r 15(1)(b) and (c) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 ;

(d) the petition herein is not in compliance with s 38(1)(a) of the Election Offence Act 1954;

(e) the petition herein is not in compliance with r 4(1)(b) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 ; and

(f) the petition herein is not in compliance with r 4(4) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 .

The Preliminary Objection Of The 2nd And 3rd Respondents

[7] The 2nd and 3rd Defendants also gave notice of their preliminary objection to the petition herein by the letter dated 13 February 2023 of the learned Senior Federal Counsel on behalf of the Attorney-General. The preliminary object is on the following grounds:

(a) the allegations of bribery set out at paras 5-17 in the election petition herein is not related to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents;

(b) the allegations against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in the election petition herein do not comply with r 4(1)(b) read together with r 4(4) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 as the facts and grounds relied on are insufficient and incapable of supporting the reliefs sought; and

(c) the allegations set out at para 18-21 of the petition herein had failed to comply with s 32(b) of the Election Offences Act 1954 as the facts and grounds relied on are insufficient and incapable of supporting the reliefs sought and will not affect the end result of the election.

Mandatory To Comply With Statutory Requirements Of Election Petition

[8] The jurisdiction of an election judge to determine disputes in respect of an election in election petition proceedings is a special jurisdiction unknown to common law or equity.

[9] It is a creature of statute and as such, the power and jurisdiction ex