UMARU ABDU PAMBEGUA & ORS v. AHMED TSOHO KARGI & ORS
(1998)LCN/0397(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 1998
CA/K/EPLG/1/98
RATIO
APPEAL: WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL TO INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE TRIAL TRIBUNAL
It was not the duty of the Appeal Tribunal to interfere with findings of fact made by the trial Tribunal unless such findings of fact are perverse. The findings of trial Tribunal have not been shown to be perverse. See Mbonu v. Nwoti (1991) 17 NWLR (pt.206) 1737 and Samgboye v. Olarewaju (1991) 4 NWLR (pt. 184) 132 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
- UMARU ABDU PAMBEGUA
2. UNITED NIGERIA CONGRESS PARTY (UNCP) Appellant(s)
AND
- AHMED TSOHO KARGI
2. GRASSROOT DEMOCRATIC PARTY (GDP)
3. NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) OF NIGERIA (NECON) Respondent(s)
JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, J.C.A. (Delivered the Leading Judgment): The first petitioner contested the chairmanship election into Kubau Local Government Council of Kaduna State held on the 15th of March 1997 under the platform of the second petitioner UNCP (United Nigeria Congress Party). The 1st respondent contested under the platform of the Grassroot Democratic Party and won the election.
The petitioners were not happy and petitioned the Kaduna State Election Tribunal on the ground that the 1st respondent was disqualified from participating in the election because he was still a public servant apart from other allegations. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition. The petitioners were dissatisfied and appealed to the Election Appeal Tribunal of Kaduna State. The Appeal Tribunal in its judgment of 25th day of August 1997 reversed the decision of the lower Tribunal and ordered for a fresh election in the Local Government Council by a majority decision. The minority decision by one of the members Mrs. Hanatu Balogun affirmed the decision of the lower Tribunal. The 1st and 2nd respondents were not happy with the majority decision of the Appeal Tribunal and wrote a petition to the Federal Government which then ordered that the matter be reviewed.
The learned Attorney-General in his brief to this Court identified three Issues for determination as follows:-
“1. Whether having regard to the evidence adduced at the lower Tribunal and the decision of the lower tribunal, the Appeal Tribunal was right in setting aside the decision of the lower tribunal and ordering a fresh election in the local government.
2. Whether the majority decision passed by the Appeal Tribunal was not bias and also not in conformity with the provisions of Decree 7 of 1997.
3. Whether the petitioner indeed scored the highest number of lawful votes cast at the said Chairmanship election on 15th March, 1997.”
The learned Attorney-General in “his brief submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners in their petition were not established and therefore the election tribunal was right in dismissing the petition and affirming the election of the 1st respondent. He also contended that the appeal Tribunal was wrong in its majority decision to have ordered a fresh election. He urged the Court to set aside the majority decision of the appeal Tribunal and endorse the minority decision of that Tribunal which affirmed the decision of the election tribunal.
The 1st and 2nd respondents also filed a brief of argument in which it was submitted that the petitioners did not adduce credible evidence in support of their petition.
Having examined the records placed before this court and the briefs of argument submitted to this court, it is clear to my mind that the petitioners made serious allegations of election malpractices before the Election Tribunal but they were unable to prove these allegations with credible evidence. It follows therefore that the Election Tribunal properly dismissed their petition and the Appeal Tribunal was wrong in its majority decision to have interfered with the decision of the Election Tribunal. The issues raised before the Appeal Tribunal were matters of fact and credibility of witnesses which were pre-eminently the responsibility of the trial tribunal which heard and saw the witnesses. It was not the duty of the Appeal Tribunal to interfere with findings of fact made by the trial Tribunal unless such findings of fact are perverse. The findings of trial Tribunal have not been shown to be perverse. See Mbonu v. Nwoti (1991) 7 NWLR (pt.206) 737 and Samgboye v. Olarewaju (1991) 4 NWLR (pt. 184) 132.
Consequently the majority decision of the Election Tribunal is hereby set aside and the minority opinion of Mrs Hannatu Balogun is endorsed. The judgment of the Election Tribunal is restored in its place. In other words the petition of the petitioners stands dismissed and the election of the 1st respondent as Chairman of the Local Government council is affirmed.
ATINUKE OMOBONIKE IGE, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of a preview of the decision just delivered by my learned brother Ogebe JCA.
I agree with him that the minority opinion of Mrs. Hanatu Balogun was the correct one. I too dismiss the petition and affirm the election of the 1st Respondent as the Chairman of Kubau Local Govt. council.
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.: I read in draft the decision of my learned brother Ogebe JCA. I am in complete agreement with his reasoning and conclusion. I too endorse the opinion of Mrs. Balogun which is in line with the Election Tribunal’s decision. I accordingly, hereby, restore the Election Tribunal’s decision in place of the Appeal Tribunal’s decision. The petition stands dismissed and 1st respondent’s election as Chairman, Kubau Local Government council is hereby affirmed.
Appearances
For Appellant
AND
M.S. Aminu For Respondent
