Abba Imar V. Baragana Malarima & Ors. (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UMOREN, J.C.A.

The appellant contested the December 5, 1998 Local Government election for the chairmanship of Kala Balge Local Government Council, in Borno State on the plalform of the Peoples Democratic Party (P.D.P.). The 1st respondent was also a candidate at the election for chairmanship of the council on the platform of the All Peoples Party (A.P.P.).

At the conclusion of the election, the 1st respondent was returned as duly elected by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.

Dissatisfied with the result declared by the 2nd – 4th respondents, the appellant filed a petition questioning the election on the ground:

“That the election was voided by corrupt practices, irregularities and/or offences against the Local Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 36 of 1998 and the guidelines issued by the 2nd defendant for the conduct of the election”.

The petition was heard and on the 27th January, 1999, the tribunal dismissed the petition. It is against this decision of the Local Government Election Tribunal that the petitioner is now appealing to this court on three grounds of appeal which without their particulars, read as follows:-

“1 The tribunal was in error and came to a wrong conclusion when it dismissed the appellant’s petition on the ground that the appellant had not proved that the non-compliance with the provisions of the Local Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree 1998 complained of by the appellant did affect substantially the result of the election”.

2. The tribunal was in error in failing to evaluate and to make findings of facts regarding the evidence adduced in support of the complaint of the appellant relating to non-compliance with the Decree as affecting substantially the result of the election”.
3. The decision is against the weight of evidence”,.

Briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged. At the hearing, counsel for the parties relied on and adopted their briefs. It is worth noting that at the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that he had in his brief urged the court to strike out particular (b) in ground 2 as the same was included in error.

The appellant formulated one issue for determination which reads:

“It is respectfully submitted the issue for determination is whether having regard to the petition complaining of non-compliance with the provisions of the Decree and the totality of the evidence before the tribunal, the tribunal was right in dismissing the petition”.

In arguing this issue the learned counsel for the appellant called in aid S.84(1) and 85(1) of the Decree No. 36 of 1998.

S. 84(1) of the Decree states inter alia as follows:-

84(1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds; that is:

“(b) That the election was voided by corrupt practices or offences or non-compliance with the provisions of this Decree”.