Hon. Jibril Zubairu & Anor. V. Lliyasu Isah Mohammed & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

The 1st Appellant was the candidate of the 2nd Appellant at the election to Membership of the Kaduna State House of Assembly for Magajin Gari Constituency of Birnin Gwari Local Government, held on 14th April 2007.

The 1st Respondent, who was the candidate of the 2nd Respondent at the said election, was returned as the duly elected Member representing the said Constituency. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, the Appellants filed a Petition at the Tribunal wherein they prayed for-

1. A DECLARATION that the 1st Respondent having not validly retired/disengaged from his employment in the public service at least 30 days before the date of the election on 14th day of April 2007, is disqualified from contesting election as a member of Kaduna State House of Assembly representing Magajin Gari Constituency, Birnin Gwari Local Government.

2. AN ORDER setting aside the declaration of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the Kaduna State House of Assembly election for Magajin Gari Constituency conducted on 14th April 2007.

3. A DECLARATION that the 1st Petitioner is the winner and duly elected Member of the Kaduna State House of Assembly representing Magajin Gari Constituency, Birnin Gwari Local Government having scored a majority of lawful votes cast at the election conducted on 14th April 2007.

The “Grounds and Facts upon which the Petition Relies” are that-

The election in Magajin Gari Constituency Birnin Gwari Local Government, were invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the electoral Act 2006, which substantially affected the outcome of the election.

ii) The election in Magajin Gari Constituency Birnin Gwari Local Government, were invalid by reason of corrupt practices.

iii) The 1st Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

iv) The 1st Respondent was at the time of the election disqualified from contesting the election.

After the pre-hearing Conference, the Appellants called 4 witnesses at the trial that followed, and tendered a number of documents in evidence. The 1st and 2nd Respondents called 5 witnesses but did not tender any documentary evidence while the 3rd – 13th Respondents did not call any witnesses or tender any documentary evidence. Thereafter, written addresses were filed and exchanged and in its Judgment delivered on the 16th day of January 2008, the Tribunal held inter alia that the 1st Respondent “duly resigned his appointment as required by law” and that he was at the time of the election qualified to contest the election.

Aggrieved, the Appellants appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing three Grounds of Appeal, and with the leave of this Court, the Appellants filed three additional Grounds of Appeals.

Briefs of arguments were duly filed and exchanged, and in the Appellants’ brief prepared by Samuel Atung, Esq., the following three issues were formulated as arising for determination in this appeal –