ALHAJI MOHAMMED HUSSAINI LIKORO & ANOR v. ALHAJI SULEIMAN MOHAMMED & ORS
(1998)LCN/0396(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 1998
CA/K/EPLG/4/98
RATIO
APPEAL: WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF AN APPEAL COURT TO INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS MADE BY THE LOWER TRIBUNALS
it is not the duty of an appeal court to interfere with concurrent findings of facts made by lower tribunals. See Okunzua v. Amosu (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 416. Eze v. The state (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 251) 75 and Oyegun v. Igbinedion (1992) 2 NWLR (pt. 226) 747 PER JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, 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
- ALHAJI MOHAMMED HUSSAINI LIKORO
2. UNITED NIGERIA CONGRESS PARTY (UNCP) Appellant(s)
AND
- ALHAJI SULEIMAN MOHAMMED
2. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF NIGERIA (DPN)
3. NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF NIGERIA (NECON) Respondent(s)
JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): Dissatisfied with the outcome of the Local Government elections held on the 15th of March 1997 in respect of the Chairmanship for Kudan Local Government council of Kaduna state, the petitioners filed a petition to the Election Petition Tribunal of Kaduna state challenging the return of the 1st respondent as the Chairman of Kudan Local Government. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition. The petitioners were still dissatisfied and appealed to the Election Appeal Tribunal of Kaduna state which also dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then wrote a petition to the Government for a review of the case.
The learned Attorney-General of the Federation in his brief to this court formulated one Issue for determination. It reads:-
“The sole issue for determination before the Review Panel was whether or not the decisions of both the Election and Appeal Tribunals was perverse and against the weight of evidence, as contained in the Records of proceedings.”
A brief was also filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. Both briefs are contending that the judgment of the Election Appeal Tribunal be affirmed as it was the right decision in the circumstances of the case. I have read the record of this case and considered the arguments in the briefs and I am satisfied that the judgment of the trial Election Tribunal and the judgment of the Election Appeal Tribunal both in favour of the respondents cannot be faulted. They were based mainly on findings of fact and it is not the duty of an appeal court to interfere with concurrent findings of facts made by lower tribunals. See Okunzua v. Amosu (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 416. Eze v. The state (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 251) 75 and Oyegun v. Igbinedion (1992) 2 NWLR (pt. 226) 747.
Consequently I see no cause to interfere with the decisions of the two lower Tribunals and I hereby affirm them and in so doing affirm the election of the 1st respondent as the Chairman of Kudan Local Government Council.
ATINUKE OMOBONIKE IGE, J.C.A.: I agree with my learned brother Ogebe JCA that the concurrent findings of both the Lower Tribunal and the Election Appeal Tribunal cannot be faulted as they are based mainly of facts. See the case of Iroegbu v. Okwordi 1995 4 NWLR (pt 389) 270. I also affirm the election of the 1st Respondent as Chairman of Kadan Local Govt council.
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading before now the decision of my learned brother Ogebe, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. I, too affirm the lower tribunals decision which affirmed the 1st respondent as Chairman of Kudan Local Government of Kaduna State.
Appearances
For Appellant
AND
Godwin A. Alley Esq for 1st and 2nd Respondent. For Respondent
