Home » Nigerian Cases » Court of Appeal » Umaru Abdu Pambegua & Ors V. Ahmed Tsoho Kargi & Ors (1998) LLJR-CA

Umaru Abdu Pambegua & Ors V. Ahmed Tsoho Kargi & Ors (1998) LLJR-CA

Umaru Abdu Pambegua & Ors V. Ahmed Tsoho Kargi & Ors (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, J.C.A.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. Whether the petitioner indeed scored the highest number of lawful votes cast at the said Chairmanship election on 15th March, 1997.”
See also  Costain (W.a.) Limited V. Alhaji Taslim Ishola Kotun & Ors. (1998) LLJR-CA

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.

See also  Mathew Mbogu V. Adviser Shadrack (Now Amagbe) (2007) LLJR-CA

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.


Other Citations: (1998)LCN/0397(CA)

More Posts

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004: Short Title

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004 Section 47 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment,

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004: Interpretation

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004 Section 46 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Interpretation. In this Act – Interpretation “Commission” means the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission established

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004: Savings

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004 Section 45 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Savings. The repeal of the Act specified in section 43 of this Act shall not

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. We ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world, among others