Wong Siong Tung J:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

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 15-11-2022 and the general polling was held on 19-11-2022.

[2]After completion of the counting of the votes casted by the electorates and official addition of the votes, the returning officer declared the 1^st 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 1^st Respondent was gazetted via P.U.(B) 619/2022 on 14.12.2022 pursuant to regulation 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 29-12-2022, the Petitioner presented the election petition herein, seeking this election Court to determine that the 1^st Respondent was not duly elected as the member of Parliament for the said Constituency and to declare the said election held on 19.11.2022 null and void.

[5]The Election Petition was presented upon the grounds under section 32(a)Election Offences Act 1954section 32(b)

THE 1^st RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT PETITION

[6]By a Notice of application dated 13-2-2023 (Encl. 27), the 1^st Respondent applied to strike out the petition herein on the following grounds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE 2^nd AND 3^rd RESPONDENTS

[7]The 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants also gave notice of their preliminary objection to the petition herein by the letter dated 13-2-2023 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 paragraphs 5-17 in the election petition herein is not related to the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents;

(b)the allegations against the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents in the election petition herein do not comply with Rule 4(1)(b) read together with Rule 4(4) of the Election Petition Rules 1954

(c)the allegations set out at paragraph 18-21 of the petition herein had failed to comply with Section 32(b)Election Offences Act 1954

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 jurisdict