ADEDOH v. NPC & ORS (2021)

ADEDOH v. NPC & ORS

(2021)LCN/15056(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Tuesday, February 09, 2021

CA/A/634/M/2013

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ALHAJI DAUDA SALAHU ADEDOH APPELANT(S)

And

THE NATIONAL POPULATION COMMISSION 2. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER, NPC, KOGI STATE 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NPC, KOGI STATE 4. COMPTROLLER, NPC, ADAVI LOCAL GOVT. AREA 5. ENUMERATOR, NPC, ADAV1 LOCAL GOVT. AREA RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

LEGAL EFFECT OF ANY JUDICIAL OR OFFICIAL ACT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN A MANNER SUBSTANTIALLY REGULAR AND WHETHER SUCH PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED

The Courts have held in the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited vs Ojiowhor Monday Amadi & 12 Others (2010) 13 NWLR pg. 142. paragraph E-F as follows: “When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular it is presumed that formal requisite for the validity were complied with.” In the instant action Exhibit B1 has shown that the Census and post census activities were done in a manner substantially regular. This is a presumption, which can be rebutted by credible evidence as has been held in Senator Chris Adighije vs Nkechi Nwaogu & 10 Others (2010) 12 NWLR Pg. 461 Paragraph as follows: – “By virtue of Sections 4 and 150 (1) of the Evidence Act, there is presumption of regularity in respect of judicial or official acts. That is to say that the formal requisites for validity of all judicial or official acts are presumed to have been complied with until the contrary is proved; …” In Mr. C.I.D Maduabum Vs Hon. Ben Nwosu & 5 others (Supra) ratio 15, the Court held as follows: “Section 150(1) of the Evidence Act provides that when any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with. By virtue of the above provision of the law, the result of any election declared by the Electoral Commission is presumed to be correct and authentic but such presumption is rebuttable and the burden is on the party who disputes the correctness and authenticity of the result to lead credible evidence in rebuttal.” PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

LEGAL EFFECT OF UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS OR DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURT ON APPEAL

The law is settled that decisions of a competent Court or Tribunal not appealed against or which an appellate Court has not set aside subsists forever until set aside. 1. APC V. HON D. I. KARFI & ORS (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1616) 479 AT 519 H per EKO. J.S.C. who said: “On 11th March 2015, the three appellants herein lodged their appeal to the Court of Appeal (the lower Court) challenging the decision of the Federal High Court. INEC, in spite of the orders of the Federal High Court directing it not to recognize or otherwise deal with the candidate of the APC, 1st appellant, in the general election and/or placing the 3rd appellant or any other candidate of the APC on the ballot in consequence of the inconclusive primary election of 2nd December, 2014, did not appeal the decision of the Federal High Court. I need only re-state or emphasize the trite principle of law that decisions of Court not appealed against remain valid, binding, subsisting and taken as acceptable between the parties until the decision is set aside. See Akere v. Governor, Oyo State (2012) 50 11 NSCQR 345 at 414 – 415; (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 240; LSDPC v. Purification Tech. Ltd (2012) 521 NSCQR 274 at 309.” 2. MRS AISHA ABDURAHAMAN & ANOR VS MRS SHADE THOMAS (2019) 12 NWLR (PART 1685) 107 AT 124H TO 125 A – C per EKO, J.S.C. who said: – “Neither in the notice of appeal nor in their brief did the appellants make any attempt, albeit feeble, to attack the foregoing decision that crucially was fatal to their case. The law, as re- stated by Musdapher, J.S.C., in Jimoh Michael v. The State (2008) LPELR-1874 (SC) @ page 7; (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 361, is that where there is an appeal on some points only in a decision, the appeal stands or falls on those points appealed against only, while the other points or decision not appealed remain unchallenged. Such point or decision unchallenged is taken as acceptable to the parties, particularly the appellant. In other words, a finding or decision of the Court below not challenged on appeal must not, rightly or wrongly; be disturbed by the appellate Court: Oshodi v. Eyifunmi (2000) LPELR – 2805 (SC); (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 684) 298; Nwabueze v. Okoye (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 91) 664. And as I stated elsewhere: a party to the proceeding who does not appeal a particular adverse finding or decision, or who takes no steps to have it reviewed is deemed to accept the verdict against him: Ezerioha & Ors v. Ihezuo (2009) LPELR-4122 (CA). A finding of fact or point in a decision not appealed persists and remains binding on the parties to the suit.” PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

WHETHER A COURT CAN RELY ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE TO DECREE ANY RELIEF IN A PARTY’S FAVOUR

The law also needs no restatement that a Court cannot rely on hearsay evidence to decree any reliefs in a party’s favour. Evidence of witnesses must be direct and where documents are relied upon, it must be testified upon by party that has knowledge of their contents: 1. Section 37 and 38 of Evidence Act 2011 which provide: “37. Hearsay means a statement — (a) oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding; or (b) contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it. 38. Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this Part or by or under any other provision of this or any other Act.” 2. NYESOM V PETERSIDE & ORS (2016) 7 NWLR (PART 1512) 452 AT 522 per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the CENSUS TRIBUNAL which sat at ZONE 4 WUSE ABUJA delivered on 14th November 2012 CORAM (CHIEF (MRS) M. I. OBEGOLU, CHAIRMAN, BARR M. MOHAMMED and PROF. A. A. ADEWUYI) dismissing the complaint of the COMPLAINANT in its entirety as lacking in merit.

The Appellant had approached the said Tribunal on his Amended Complaint of 18th August, 2011 claiming as follows: –
“1. An order of the Census Tribunal that the gazette final results of the 2006 National Census as it relates to Adavi Local Government Area is invalid, null and void for reasons of gross under enumeration and under counting and a total omission of well-known settlements and populations de factor in the L.G.A.
2. An order of the Honourable Court Census Tribunal authorizing as appropriate, that there be a recount of the gazetted final result of the 2006 census as it relates to Adavi Local Government Area.
3. An order stopping the 1st respondent and or any other persons or authorities in Nigeria from using or recognizing the said 2006 final census result for Adavi

Local Government Area.
4. Costs incurred by the complainant in this complaint.”

The Appellant called four witnesses while the 1st – 5th Respondents who called a witness filed joint Reply or Defence to the complaints of the Appellant.

The findings of the lower Tribunal which cover the entire spectrum of the Appellant’s complaint(s) can be found on pages 453 – 456 of the record where the lower Court found as follows: –
“It is on record that the census exercise conducted in Adavi Local Government Area was initially interrupted by a riot, but it is also on record that DW1 under cross examination testified as follows:
“… one of the local guides came and checked his name and after checking his name used a biro to cross out another’s name, it gave rise to clash of clans. They fought in the Chairman’s office and they smashed all vehicles in my office except mine. I left and came back after the situation calmed down and commenced with my work that was around 9.00 am in the morning. The Chairman of the Local Government gave us vehicles we used that day. The riot took place in the Primary School within the LGA office and had

nothing to do with the census outside.”
From the above evidence, it is clear that the census was not a perfect one, but tribunal is not called upon to make a finding of its perfection as both counsel have raised the same issue to determine as to whether there is substantial compliance. A careful look at the evidence of DW1 as contained above will reveal three things namely that the fracas was caused by a guide and not an enumerator, secondly, the venue of the fight was in the Primary School within the office of the Local Government Area and not the entire Adavi Local Government Area. Thirdly, the fight did not last long as it was around 9.00 am and it did not stop the census from commencing that day with the assistance rendered by the Local Government Chairman in giving the enumerators his vehicles.
There is nothing on record as given by the witnesses that the census exercise was hindered by violence in the Adavi Local Government Area and I so hold.
I have carefully looked at Exhibit B1 and page 13 No 26 with the sub title “data processing” of the said Exhibit B1 reveals as follows:
“The huge work load and the challenges involved in

data processing of the census questionnaire needs to be appreciated. Following the completion of the field work of enumeration of the population end of March 2006, census forms canvassed were collected back from the enumerators at the LGA and state headquarters and were sent to the 7 data processing centres (DPC’s) the 7 DPC’s are located at Lagos Ibadan, Port Harcourt, Enugu, Kaduna, Kano, and Yola and the census forms of the adjoining states based on geopolitical proximity were processed in each DPC to ensure that there is transparency and neutrality during the entire processing, the data processing Manager technical officer in Charge of DPC responsible for data processing was from a different zone. The Federal Commissioners in charge of the DPC were cross posted from North to South. Finally, there were 6 resident international monitors at the DPC’s supported by the EU/UNFPA who supervised the full data processing in addition to the full time international IT advisers for Technical backstopping”.
This singular piece of evidence remains uncontroverted by credible evidence. Let me repeat that this Tribunal is not called upon to consider whether this

census was perfect rather counsel has called upon this Tribunal to find whether the census was done in substantial compliance as required by the National Population Commission Act. From the Formal procedure designating centres cutting across seven cities in having Data Processing Centres as seen from Exhibit B1, it is clear that there is a presumption of regularity in favour of the Respondent. The Courts have held in the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited vs Ojiowhor Monday Amadi & 12 Others (2010) 13 NWLR pg. 142. paragraph E-F as follows:
“When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular it is presumed that formal requisite for the validity were complied with.”
In the instant action Exhibit B1 has shown that the Census and post census activities were done in a manner substantially regular. This is a presumption, which can be rebutted by credible evidence as has been held in Senator Chris Adighije vs Nkechi Nwaogu & 10 Others (2010) 12 NWLR Pg. 461 Paragraph as follows: –
“By virtue of Sections 4 and 150 (1) of the Evidence Act, there is presumption of regularity in

respect of judicial or official acts. That is to say that the formal requisites for validity of all judicial or official acts are presumed to have been complied with until the contrary is proved; …”
In Mr. C.I.D Maduabum Vs Hon. Ben Nwosu & 5 others (Supra) ratio 15, the Court held as follows:
“Section 150(1) of the Evidence Act provides that when any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with. By virtue of the above provision of the law, the result of any election declared by the Electoral Commission is presumed to be correct and authentic but such presumption is rebuttable and the burden is on the party who disputes the correctness and authenticity of the result to lead credible evidence in rebuttal.”
This tribunal hold that the census in Adavi Local Government Area was in substantial compliance with the relevant laws and same has been rebutted by credible evidence adduced by the complainant especially as I have earlier on refused to rely on the evidence of the three witnesses called by the Complainant

as their evidence was essentially hearsay.
All the issues to be determined by the tribunal as raised by counsel are all resolved in favour of the respondents.
Relief one as prayed by the complainant to wit- An order of the Census Tribunal that the gazette final result of the 2006 National census as it relates to Adavi Local Government Area is invalid, null and void for reasons of gross under enumeration and under counting and a total omission of well know settlements and populations de facto in the LGA fails. This is so as this Tribunal has already held that the complainant failed to prove his complaint as the evidence was essentially hearsay.
Relief two sought by the complainant to wit- An order of this Honourable Court census tribunal authorizing (as appropriate) that there be a recount of the gazette final result of the 2006 census as it relates to Adavi Local Government Area also fails as this tribunal has already held earlier on in the judgment that the compliance failed to rebut the presumption of regularity by credible evidence as the witnesses called could not controvert the documentary evidence as seen in Exhibit B1.
There is

no need to make a finding or make declarations on reliefs three and four which success stood on reliefs one and two as that would be academic exercise one and two have already failed.
On the whole, this Tribunal dismisses the complaint of the complainant in its entirely as same is lacking in merit.
There is no order as to costs.
Given under the hand of the Honourable Chairman/Members and seal of this tribunal this 14th day of November, 2012.
SGD.
CHIEF (MRS.) M. I. OBEGOLU – CHAIRMAN
SGD.
BARR. M. MOHAMMED – MEMBER
SGD.
PROF. A. A. ADEWUYI

Appellant was dissatisfied and has appealed to this Court vide his Notice of Appeal filed in this Court on 14th November, 2013 and deemed properly filed on 23rd June, 2015 containing four (4) grounds of appeal which with their particulars as follows: –
“2. PART OF THE DECISION OF THE LOWER TRIBUNAL COMPLAINED OF:
The whole Decision
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. The learned Chairman and members of the Census Tribunal “C” erred in law when they failed to apply the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in NATIONAL POPULATION COMMISSION V. IKERE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

(2001) 7 SCNJ 418 and in erroneously holding that:
a. “…the Supreme Court held reliance on demographic theories, historical background and socio-political events which may show the serious improbability of the accuracy of the figures declared by the commission and put a serious question mark on the accuracy of the figures declared and the efficacy of the entire exercise itself together with the allegation of bias in the conduct of the exercise are all irrelevant”.
b. “In the same case cited by the Complainant the holding of the Supreme Court as seen above will reveal that the reliance on demographic theories which may show the serious improbability of the accuracy of the figures are all irrelevant. To rely on theories to show an improbable figure is irrelevant. In the instant case, the said Exhibit B1 shows probable figure not the improbable figure… The case cited by the complainant does not help his case”.
When:
i. The Supreme Court did not hold that reliance on demographic theories are irrelevant.
ii. The Supreme Court held that it is “serious misconception” for the Counsel and the Tribunal

itself to think that “reliance on demographic theories etc. … are all irrelevant”.
iii. In other words, reliance on demographic theories is relevant.
2. The learned Chairman and Members of the Census Tribunal “C” erred in law when they held that “in the instant case the Complainant “failed to bring the NPC Form 01 by way of subpoena Duces Tecum served on 1st Respondent which would have helped its case and not just on the 4th Respondent” therefore shows that the Complainant has failed to prove its case on de facto physical enumeration of only people physically seen during the exercise”.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. The NPC Form 01 (in a filled pick-up van) was produced only on the last day of testimony of CWs. The result of the counsel’s examination of the load of NPCs Form 01 was made known to the Honourable Tribunal in writing.
ii. Undercount of census figures in Adavi LGA can still be proved and was proved even in the absence of NPC FORM 01. The tendering of the said NPC FORM 01 is not sine qua non to a successful challenge of census results.
iii. The Supreme Court has held in NPC v. Chairman Ikere LGA (2001) 7 SCNJ

418 that the value and weight to be attached to NPC FORMS depend on a number of circumstances. “To hold otherwise would elevate the forms to conclusive evidence of what they declared, when the law does not so provide… they (the Forms) cannot be such evidence of the flawlessness of the exercise. Production of the forms in evidence cannot itself be an answer to allegations of partial enumeration”.
iv. There was no adequate safety measures put in place by Respondents and this led to outbreak of riots and fighting and the consequential counting of indigenes only as Respondents pleaded and was admitted by their only witness, a clear case of under count.
3. The learned Chairman and members of the Census Tribunal “C” erred in law when they held as follows:
“It is on record that the census exercise conducted in Adavi Local Government Area was initially interrupted by a riot … it is clear that the census was not a perfect one, but Tribunal is not called upon to make a finding of its perfection … There is nothing on record as given by the witnesses that the Census exercise was hindered by violence in the Adavi Local Government

Area and I so hold”.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. The DW1 in his testimony contradicted himself in stating that:
“They fought in the Chairman’s office”, and “the venue of the fight was in the Primary School within the office of the Local Government Area”.
ii. A riot is a riot: it does not matter whether it was “caused by a guide” or by “an enumerator”; and it matters little whether the fighting was in the L.G. Chairman’s office or in the Primary School.
iii. Census exercise “interrupted by a riot”, “fracas”, “fight” giving “rise to clash of clans” and resulting in a situation where the rioters’ “smashed all vehicles” is bound to have impact on the conduct or integrity of the exercise as Complainant pleaded – e.g., the resort to counting only indigenes — the length or duration of the clannish riots is immaterial.
3. The judgment agreed that “the Census was not a perfect one”. Complainant (corroborated by Respondents) showed the imperfection, in that only indigenes of Adavi LGA were counted. Such census head count would not be proper, aside from being imperfect.
4. The learned Chairman and Members of the

Census Tribunal “C” erred in law when they held as follows: “The Tribunal hold that the Census in Adavi Local Government Area was in substantial compliance with the relevant laws and same has (not?) been rebutted by credible evidence adduced by the Complainant…”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. The National Population Commission Act (NPC Act) did not stipulate “substantial compliance”: that expression is Respondents’ own invention.
ii. The concept of “substantial compliance” under the Electoral Act(s) and the cases decided under the said Act (as amended) cannot be imported into the NPC Act or into population census cases.
iii. The cases cited on “substantial compliance” are irrelevant and not germane or applicable to the instant case.
5. The learned Chairman and members of the Census Tribunal “C” erred in law when they held as follows: “The complainant has gone further to submit that the Respondent only counted indigenes. I have carefully considered the said Exhibit B1 and careful consideration would reveal not just Adavi Local Government Area, but throughout all the Federation that in the Census exercise of the Local

Government, person was categorized into Male and Female and not into indigenes and settlers or Migrants. I therefore hold that on the strength of Exhibit B1 both indigenes and non-indigenes were counted as there is no column for such categorization as can be seen from Exhibit B1.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. It is sheer speculation for the Tribunal to say on the strength of Exhibit B1 “both indigenes and non-indigenes were counted”.
ii. Parties are bound by their pleadings. Respondents had specifically pleaded (and this remained unamended to the end) that they counted only indigenes.
iii. There was admission by Respondents’ sole witness that they counted only indigenes.
iv. What is admitted needs no further proof. This is trite law.
v. It was not Complainant who opened up this issue: it was Respondents who freely said they counted indigenes.
vi. Exhibit B1 which made categorization into Male or Female is not the counting act, it is rather the announcement of the aggregated result of the actual counting exercise.
vii. And in any case by going outside the “categorization as can be seen from Exhibit B1”, the

Respondents had conducted the census exercise in Adavi LGA not in “substantial compliance” with the law.
viii. Respondents themselves (by their pleading and oral testimony) introduced the vocabulary of counting indigenes (and not non-indigenes) Respondents earnestly and honestly knew what they did hence they wrote it down as “counting indigenes”
ix. Having counted only indigenes of Adavi LGA (as reflected in the published figures for the said LGA) there has been under-count and or non-count of the gross population of Adavi Local Government area. The 2006 Census figures published for Adavi LGA are accordingly not correct and have accordingly occasioned miscarriage of justice to Appellant/Adavi LGA
6. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.”
4. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
“To allow the Appeal, set aside the judgment of (Lower) Census Tribunal “C” which dismissed the Complainant’s complaint of under-count of the population of Adavi LGA in 2006 Census as lacking merit and to order a recount of the population of Adavi LGA.”

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 3rd August, 2015 was filed on 5th August, 2015

while the Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated 2nd September, 2015 was filed on the same date.

The Learned Senior Counsel to the Appellant DR. S. E. MOSUGU, SAN distilled three issues for determination as follows:
“3.1 In the very humble opinion of the Appellant, the following issues distilled from the Grounds of Appeal have arisen for determination in this Appeal.
(1) Whether the trial Census Tribunal was not wrong when it held, (in view of the pleaded facts and evidence in the case), that the National Population Commission cannot rely on demographic theories/projections and or other evidence outside of NPC FORMS (to arrive at appropriate or proximate final figures) during the conduct of the 2006 enumeration of population in Adavi LGA (Grounds 1 and 2)
(2) Whether the admitted imperfection and or the recorded occurrence of violence, rioting/crisis (in the course of conducting the 2006 census in Adavi LGA) as well as the enumeration of indigenes only in Adavi LGA did not have any effect on the outcome of the final census figures on the Adavi LCA as to make same not to be in accordance with nor in compliance with the NPC Act. (Grounds

3, 4 and 5).
(3) Whether the census Tribunal “C” was not wrong when it held that the Complainant/Appellant had not discharged the burden of proof on him. (Ground 6).”

The learned Counsel to the 1st – 5th Respondents JOSEPH OLUWAROTIMI OJO, ESQ adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant’s learned Senior Counsel.
The three issues raised by the Appellant will be taken together.

The Appellant’s main submission under issue one is that the Appellant only called on the Tribunal in the face of all anomalies in the ADAVI population figures to apply well known UN International Standards for measuring population growth where as in this case, Appellant has queried the final census figures for ADAVI LGA and not that they asked the lower Tribunal to speculate on anything. That Respondents had only enumerated indigenes of ADAVI LGA and had consequently allotted ADAVI LGA an inexplicable paltry annual growth of 2.5. That the lower Court was wrong in finding that reliance on demographic theories are irrelevant. He relied on NPC V IKERE LOCAL GOVT AREA supra.

The above submissions ignored the specific findings of the lower Court to the effect

that the Appellant was not relying on any cogent or empirical evidence for his claims, but relied on hearsay evidence. That Appellant and his witnesses gave hearsay evidence for reliefs sought.

The lower tribunal held on pages 448 – 449 of the record thus:
“The Court have laid down this trite position of the law as was eloquently given in the case of Ferdinand Abadom vs. The State (1997) 1 NWLR pg. 24 paragraph F-H where the Court held as follows:
“It is hearsay evidence when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by evidence not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made.”
I have gone through the testimonies of the witnesses called by the complainants and complainant himself who is the CW1 and I find that the complainant wants this tribunal to believe his evidence and by extension wants us to believe what he was told for this was the premise upon which he reported to the Local Government Chairman. Under cross examination, he said as follows “I followed the enumerators. On the 3rd day the enumerators started

complaining of shortage of forms and we reported to the Local Government Chairman. On the 4th day “Under re-examination, he again stated as follows” it was people from Adavi who told me they were not counted and I am part of the people.”
He believes the report of the people and as an expression of his belief, reported to the Chairman of the Adavi Local Government Area and went further to state that the people of Adavi told me they were not counted and I am part of the people. The “people of Adavi” are not before this tribunal though he is a part of them but more importantly the reliefs sought would show that the truth of them but more importantly the reliefs sought would show that the truth of the people of Adavi and the like in other witnesses said are sought to established, I therefore hold that the truth is sought to be established by the complainant witnesses and as such does not come within the ambit of the exceptions of hearsay evidence. I further hold that the evidence of the complainant witnesses is not before this tribunal and records that are before this tribunal, CW4, testified that as the Title Holders he was in Okene and

they brought reports to him prior to coming to this tribunal.”

The above far-reaching findings of the lower Tribunal were not appealed against by the Appellant. The Appellant must be deemed to be satisfied with the findings of the lower Court. The law is settled that decisions of a competent Court or Tribunal not appealed against or which an appellate Court has not set aside subsists forever until set aside.
1. APC V. HON D. I. KARFI & ORS (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1616) 479 AT 519 H per EKO. J.S.C. who said:
“On 11th March 2015, the three appellants herein lodged their appeal to the Court of Appeal (the lower Court) challenging the decision of the Federal High Court. INEC, in spite of the orders of the Federal High Court directing it not to recognize or otherwise deal with the candidate of the APC, 1st appellant, in the general election and/or placing the 3rd appellant or any other candidate of the APC on the ballot in consequence of the inconclusive primary election of 2nd December, 2014, did not appeal the decision of the Federal High Court. I need only re-state or emphasize the trite principle of law that decisions of Court not

appealed against remain valid, binding, subsisting and taken as acceptable between the parties until the decision is set aside. See Akere v. Governor, Oyo State (2012) 50 11 NSCQR 345 at 414 – 415; (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 240; LSDPC v. Purification Tech. Ltd (2012) 521 NSCQR 274 at 309.”
2. MRS AISHA ABDURAHAMAN & ANOR VS MRS SHADE THOMAS (2019) 12 NWLR (PART 1685) 107 AT 124H TO 125 A – C per EKO, J.S.C. who said: –
“Neither in the notice of appeal nor in their brief did the appellants make any attempt, albeit feeble, to attack the foregoing decision that crucially was fatal to their case. The law, as re- stated by Musdapher, J.S.C., in Jimoh Michael v. The State (2008) LPELR-1874 (SC) @ page 7; (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 361, is that where there is an appeal on some points only in a decision, the appeal stands or falls on those points appealed against only, while the other points or decision not appealed remain unchallenged. Such point or decision unchallenged is taken as acceptable to the parties, particularly the appellant. In other words, a finding or decision of the Court below not challenged on appeal must not, rightly or wrongly; be

disturbed by the appellate Court: Oshodi v. Eyifunmi (2000) LPELR – 2805 (SC); (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 684) 298; Nwabueze v. Okoye (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 91) 664. And as I stated elsewhere: a party to the proceeding who does not appeal a particular adverse finding or decision, or who takes no steps to have it reviewed is deemed to accept the verdict against him: Ezerioha & Ors v. Ihezuo (2009) LPELR-4122 (CA). A finding of fact or point in a decision not appealed persists and remains binding on the parties to the suit.”

All the said findings against the Appellant are consistent with the evidence on record and militate greatly against the appeal of the Appellant.

in a book, document or any record whatever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it.
38. Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this Part or by or under any other provision of this or any other Act.”
2. NYESOM V PETERSIDE & ORS (2016) 7 NWLR (PART 1512) 452 AT 522 per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
Issue I is resolved against the Appellant.

On issue 2, the main stay of the Appellant’s argument is that the occurrence of rioting during the exercise in ADAVI LGA coupled with the enumeration of indigenes which according to the Appellant is not what the law stipulated, not only had effect on the census result in ADAVI LGA but also that the exercise was not in accordance with the NPC Act and the Nigerian Constitution and was according to the Appellant not a flawless exercise.

The law is settled that evaluation of evidence is the primary duty of lower Court or Tribunal who heard and watched the witnesses give evidence. The lower Tribunal found that the oral and documentary evidence given are not sufficient

to support Appellant’s case which was largely hinged on hearsay evidence. Again, the lower Court found on page 450 – 451 of the record as follows:
“In the instant case, the complainant called 4 witness whose evidence was largely hearsay and also failed to bring the NPC Form 01 by way of a subpoena Duces Tecum served on the 1st respondent which would have helped its case and not just on the 4th respondent who told this tribunal under oath that the documents are not with him it; therefore, shows that the complainant has failed to prove its case on de facto physical enumeration of only people physically seen during the exercise.
The complainant tendered three Exhibits namely; 3 Certified True Copy of the Official Gazette of 1997 Vol. 84 duly admitted as exhibit A. the Letter written by the chairman of the 1st Respondent to the Shettima of Ebira land admitted as Exhibit B and the Official Gazette of 2009 Vol. 96 duly admitted as Exhibit B1. The complainant has drawn a lot of comparison between Exhibit B1 which is the Census Result of the 1991 census and exhibit B1 which is the census result of the 2006 the cause of action in the instant case. I have

carefully considered the evidence before me particularly Exhibit B1 which reveals that the total number of persons in Adavi Local Government Area is 217, 219 made up of 108, 891 males and 108, 328 females for the 2006 census exercise while I carefully considered the evidence before me particularly Exhibit B and Exhibit B1, I am mindful to note at this point that it is not the duty of a Court or tribunal to begin to speculate as what the result should be by comparative analysis. Exhibit B1 particularly page 17 No. 33 contains the following statement.”

The findings of the Tribunal are fully supported by the evidence on record.
Issue 2 is resolved against the Appellant.

On issue 3, the argument of the Appellant is to the effect that the findings of trial Court that Exhibit 1 results of over seven cities Data Processing Centre Form enjoys presumption of regularity in favour of Respondents relying on Section 150 of the Evidence Act, 2011 cannot be supported in view of the weight of evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had found thus:
“This tribunal hold that the census in Adavi Local Government Area was in substantial compliance

with the relevant laws and same has been rebutted by credible evidence adduced by the complainant especially as I have earlier on refused to rely on the evidence of the three witnesses called by the complainant as their evidence was essentially hearsay.
All the issues to be determined by the tribunal as raised by counsel are all resolved in favour of the respondents.
Relief one as prayed by the complainant to wit- An order of the Census Tribunal that the gazette final result of the 2006 National census as it relates to Adavi Local Government Area is invalid, null and void for reasons of gross under enumeration and under counting and a total omission of well know settlements and populations defacto in the LGA fails. This is so as this Tribunal has already held that the complainant failed to prove his complaint as the evidence was essentially hearsay.
Relief two sought by the complainant to wit- An order of this Honourable Court census tribunal authorizing (as appropriate) that there be a recount of the gazette final result of the 2006 census as it relates to Adavi Local Government Area also fails as this tribunal has already held earlier on

in the judgment that the compliance failed to rebut the presumption of regularity by credible evidence as the witnesses called could not controvert the documentary evidence as seen in Exhibit B1.”

The above findings do not and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.
The conclusion of the lower Court Tribunal is unassailable and it is hereby upheld.
Issue 3 is resolved against the Appellant.

Consequently, Appellant’s appeal is hereby adjudged as lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
The judgment of the CENSUS TRIBUNAL in the CENSUS TRIBUNAL “C” which held at ABUJA and was delivered on 14th November, 2012 is HEREBY AFFIRMED.
There will be no order as to costs.

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A., I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and resolution of all issues distilled for determination in this appeal.
I have nothing more to add and I abide by the orders made therein.

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: I read the draft judgment just

delivered by my learned brother; PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. I agree with the reasoning, conclusion and orders therein.

Appearances:

ALHASSAN IDOKO, ESQ. with him, O. O. BRUTE, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

JOSEPH OLUWAROTIMI OJO, ESQ. with him, ANIEFIOK EKANEM, ESQ. For Respondent(s)