Wole Olanipekun SAN, counsel for the governor, claimed at the hearing on Wednesday that the tribunal misapplied the law in reaching its verdict.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja deferred its ruling on Wednesday in the appeal filed by Nasarawa State Governor, Abdullahi Sule, against the tribunal's decision declaring the Peoples Democratic Party's nominee, David Ombugadu, the winner of the state governorship election.
Ishaya Tanko, INEC State Collation and Returning Officer in March had declared Governor Abdullahi Sule, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) winner after polling a total of 347,209 votes to defeat his closest opponent- David Ombugadu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who secured 283,016 votes.
Not pleased with the result, David Ombugadu approached the election tribunal for nullification.
The tribunal, led by Justice Ezekiel Ajayi, had ruled in a split decision that Ombugadu had the majority of valid votes at the election based on evidence from the numerous polling units presented to the tribunal.
Sule, on the other hand, filed an appeal and requested the appellate court to nullify the judgement.
Wole Olanipekun SAN, counsel for the governor, claimed at the hearing on Wednesday that the tribunal misapplied the law in reaching its verdict.
He claimed that the tribunal erroneously relied on the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System machine presented as evidence, despite the petitioners' and the court's lack of demonstration.
Olanipekun claimed that the tribunal found no proof of overvoting in any of the Independent National Electoral Commission Form EC8AS submitted by the petitioners, but nonetheless declared his client's election invalid.
However, the Peoples Democratic Party candidate's counsel, Kanu Agabi SAN, stated that, contrary to Olanipekun's claims, the tribunal examined the contents of the BVAS.
He went on to say that if a court has reviewed the exhibits before it, its decision cannot be unfair.
Kanu then requested the court to dismiss the appeal, claiming that he could have made further points but couldn't owing to time restrictions.
The Court of Appeal, on the other hand, reserved its ruling.