Abubakar L. Abdullahi & Anor. V. Hon. Yahaya Sadauki & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment delivered on the 18th day of September, 2007 by the Niger State Governorship and legislative Houses Election Tribunal, in PETITION NO. SHA/EPT/NS/11/07- HON. YAHAYA SADAUKI & ANOR V. ABUBAKAR L. ABDULLAHI & 2 ORS. The Petition was challenging the return of one Abubakar L. Abdullahi as the member of the Niger State House of Assembly representing Suleja Constituency. The 1st and 2nd Respondents as Petitioners filed a four (4) paragraph Petition; while the present Appellants (who were the 1st and 2nd Respondents at the trial Tribunal) filed a five (5) paragraph Reply to the Petition. The 3rd Respondent equally filed a six (6) paragraph Reply to the Petition. The trial Tribunal in its judgment found that the 1stAppellant was not qualified to contest the election into the Niger State House of Assembly held on 14/4/2007 and consequently nullified the return of the said 1st Appellant; thereby upholding the Petition. The Appellants, who were the 1st and 2nd Respondents before the trial Tribunal being dissatisfied with the judgment nullifying the return of the 1st Appellant, have appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents in this appeal as Petitioners presented their joint Petition on 14th May, 2007. In the Petition, the election and return of the 1stAppellant was challenged on the following Grounds: –

“1. That Abubakar L. Abdullahi was not qualified to contest the election to the House of Assembly of Niger State since he did not have the minimum educational requirements and has not attained the statutory age.

2. That the 1st Respondent falsified FORM C.F. 001 which he presented to Independent National Electoral Commission.
3. That the election of the Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the electoral (sic) Act, 2006.”

Only the 1st Respondent testified in the proof of the case of the Petitioners/1st and 2nd Respondents, before the trial Tribunal. Five Exhibits were also tendered by him. The Exhibits are marked P1- P5 respectively. The Appellants denied the case of the Petitioners/1st and 2nd Respondents as set up in the Petition. The Appellants in the proof of their own case called two (2) witnesses; the 1st Appellant being one of them. One (1) Exhibit marked R1 was tendered by the Appellants. The 3rd Respondent called no witness at the hearing of the Petition. Indeed the 3rd Respondent never attached any statement on oath of any witness it proposed to call to its Reply.

The Notice of Appeal of the Appellants dated 3rd October, 2007 was filed on 5th October, 2007. The Notice of Appeal contains four (4) Grounds. The Grounds without their Particulars read thus: –

“1. The learned Election Tribunal erred in law when it wrongly placed the burden of Proof in the petition on the 1st respondent.

2. The Election Tribunal erred in law when it wrongly evaluated the evidence before it.
3. The learned Tribunal erred in law and failed to interpret properly the provisions of S. 318 1999 constitution (sic) by failing to consider the use of the words “or” and “and” when it held that “on the question of the educational qualification of the 1st respondent to contest the questioned election therefore, we hold that there is no evidence that he has been educated up to at least the school certificate level or its equivalent as required by S.106 (C) of the constitution” (sic).
4. The Tribunal erred in law when it failed to consider and wrongly expunged the relevant evidence of Secondary School certificate of the 1st respondent.”

The appeal was heard on 18/3/2008. Learned lead counsel for the Appellants, Linus A. Okere in arguing the appeal (which he urged the Court to allow), relied on and adopted the Appellants’ undated brief of argument filed on 18/2/2008 and Appellants’ Reply brief on Points of Law to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ brief dated 18th March, 2008 and filed the same day.

P.Y. Tuktur (Miss.) of counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents (holding the brief of Y.C. Maikyau), in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal, relied on and adopted the said Respondents’ brief of argument dated 10th March, 2008 but filed on 12th March, 2008. Learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent, Chinedu Odora in urging the Court to allow the appeal relied on and adopted the said Respondent’s brief of argument dated 12th March, 2008 and deemed to have been properly filed on 18th March, 2008.

Three Issues were formulated for determination in this appeal, in the Appellants’ brief which was prepared by Rotimi Ojo Esq. In the said brief, none of the Issues was married to any specific or particular ground(s) of appeal. This is not good enough. In this regard, I cannot but refer to the case of SGT, DESMOND EZEJA & ANOR V. THE STATE [2006] All FWLR (pt, 309) 1535 and urge counsel to always bear in mind the admonition of Sanusi, JCA; at page 1599 whereat His lordship said: –

“This court has times without number enjoined counsel to specifically marry issues they formulate to specified or particular grounds of appeal in their brief of argument. It is highly commendable for counsel to be doing so.”

The three Issues for determination in the appeal as formulated in the Appellants’ brief of argument are: –

“(1) Whether the 1st Respondent proved his Petition before the Tribunal.

(2) Whether the Tribunal was right when it held that the 1st Appellant was not qualified to contest as he lacked the requisite educational qualification.