LAWAL MAGAJI MOHAMMED V. UMAR BARAU & ORS.
(1997)LCN/0298(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 21st day of April, 1997
CA/K/EPLG/5/98
RATIO
ACTION: ON WHOM DOES IT FALL TO PROVE A CLAIM
The law is very clear that he who asserts a claim must prove it. See the Case of Anyanwu v. Bara 1992 5 NWLR (Pt 242) 386. PER ATINUKE OMOBONIKE IGE J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
JAMES OGENYI OGEBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ATINUKE OMOBONIKE IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
LAWAL MAGAJI MOHAMMED Appellant(s)
AND
UMAR BARAU & 64 OTHERS Respondent(s)
ATINUKE OMOBONIKE IGE J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): There was a Nation wide Local Govt. Election conducted by NECON on 15th day of March 1997. The UNCP and DPN are two of, the five registered political parties. The petitioner in this case contested the said election on the platform of the UNCP as Chairman while the 1st and 2nd Respondents contested on the platform of the DPN as candidates for Chairmanship and vice chairmanship respectively:
After collating the results of the election, NECON declared 1st and 2nd Respondents as winners in the election.
The petitioner being dissatisfied with the decision of NECON challenged the said decision before the Kaduna election tribunal on a no of grounds including the following:
1. That the 1st respondent was wrongly returned at the said election.
2. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents were at the time of the election not qualified and or disqualified from being elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman of Igabi Local Govt. Area.
3. That the election was void by corrupt practices, irregularities and electoral offences.
The petitioner sued the 1st and 2nd Respondents and 63 others challenging the results. After looking into the merits of the petition the Lower Election Tribunal dismissed the petition and confirmed NECON’S decision that 1st and 2nd Respondents were the winners as chairman and vice chairman of Igabi Local Govt. Area.
The petitioner still dissatisfied appealed to the election Appeal Tribunal and formulated the following 4 issues for determination:-
1. Whether the refusal of the petitioner’s application for production of documents in the custody of Respondents and the probing and searching questions put to PW2 by the Lower Tribunal occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether the petitioner discharged the onus of proving their case as required by law.
3. Whether the Lower Tribunal admitted and evaluated all the admissible evidence led at the trial and ascribed appropriate weight to the admissible evidence.
4. Whether the findings and holdings of the Lower Tribunal is supported by evidence or legally admissible evidence.
The appeal Tribunal after reviewing the entire case including arguments advanced by parties Counsel, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the lower Tribunal.
Still dissatisfied the petitioner under the umbrella of his party the UNCP further petitioned the office of the Attorney General for a review of the judgment of the election Appeal Tribunal. The Attorney General looked into the issues involved and came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Appeal Tribunal was right and recommended same.
Besides the brief of the Attorney General, the counsel for the 1st and 2nd and 65th Respondents filed a brief urging us to dismiss the petition as lacking in merit on the grounds inter alia that the petitioners have not been able to prove that 1st and 2nd Respondents are still in the employment of the Federation or state or Local Government or that they are disqualified on grounds of age or invalid nomination and that the election was voided by corrupt practices. I have examined carefully the various briefs and submissions of parties in this petition and also the evidence offered by the petitioners to challenge NECON’S Return and decisions of both Lower Tribunal and Appeal Tribunal. I am of the view that the petition of the petitioners lacks merit and was rightly dismissed on the onset.
The petitioners failed to substantiate their claims that 1st and 2nd Respondents were under age. They also failed to prove that 1st and 2nd Respondents were still in public office at the time of the election. Exhibits P1 and P2 disproved their allegation.
The law is very clear that he who asserts a claim must prove it. See the Case of Anyanwu v. Bara 1992 5 NWLR (Pt 242) 386. This, the petitioners have failed to do hence the Lower Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition as lacking in merit.
This body has no reason whatsoever to disturb the decision of the Lower Tribunal which was affirmed by the Election Appeal Tribunal. We also confirm their decisions. The sum total is that the petition of the petitioners was rightly dismissed as lacking in merit.
JAMES O. OGEBE, J.C.A.: I read in advance the decision of my learned brother Ige JCA just delivered and I agree with her reasoning and conclusion. I abide by the consequential order made therein.
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.: My learned brother Ige JCA permitted me to read her decision before now. I am contented with her decision. I have nothing more to add.
Appearances
S.A. UDAGA, ESQ For Appellant
AND
For Respondent
