Danjuma Domven Rimdan V. Victor Lar & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.C.A.

The appellant and the 1st Respondent in this appeal were candidates in the election into the House of Representative held on 20/2/99 for Langtang North and South Federal Constituency of Plateau State under the platforms of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and All Peoples Party i.e. APP respectively. The 2nd to 10th Respondents (i.e. the INEC officials) conducted the election and the 1st Respondent was declared as duly elected on having scored 26, 475 votes as against his opponent i.e. the appellant who scored 26, 347 votes.

Dissatisfied with the results of the election the appellant (otherwise, the petitioner at the Tribunal) initiated this matter now on appeal in this court against the Respondents on record. In answer to the petition, the 1st Respondent filed a Reply while the 2nd to 10th Respondents filed joint Reply. As found by the Tribunal, both replies traversed all the material allegations contained in the petition and thus issues were properly joined for trial. Among the many issues that went for determination before the Tribunal were two very crucial ones that is to say, as contained in paragraph 10(a) & (b) of the petition and they are:

10(a) “That the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by the majority of valid or lawful votes cast at the election”.

(b) That the 1st Respondent was not qualified to have been elected at the said election”.

At the trial before the Tribunal, the petitioner called evidence in expatiation of his case as made out in the Petition particularly as regards the specific allegations of over-voting and rigging in 5 (five) polling units to Wit Nwur, Walnim, Kamkun Central Lipohock and Zambirim. Similarly, as regards paragraph 10(b) where-in the petitioner upstaged the issue of the disqualification of the 1st Respondent as per Exh. 6 – a Government white paper – to show that he was indicted by a panel of enquiry. After the hearing and an exhaustive evaluation of the issues posed by both parties for determination the Tribunal in a considered judgment held inter alia at page 63 of the record lines 1-12 thus:-

“In the light of the foregoing and based on the totality of evidence adduced, this Tribunal therefore holds/finds as a fact that there was no over voting at the decision conducted on the 20/2/99. Since the answer to the two issues posed is in the negative i.e. there was no proof of disqualification of the 1st Respondent and no proof of over voting, the proper relief that avails the petitioner is that of dismissal of his petition…There is no proof of non-compliance with the law governing the election and there is no proof that the petitioner scored majority of lawful votes cast at the election” (underline for emphasis).

Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner has now appealed to this court and the Notice and Grounds of Appeal were filed on 23/4/99; in which he took objection to the whole decision. The 5 (five) grounds of appeal contained in the said Notice of Appeal are as subjoined hereunder. A preliminary objection against the Grounds of Appeals has been incorporated in the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument. For reasons to become obvious in this judgment Appellant’s counsel has not and indeed, could not have come round to addressing the issues so raised in the preliminary objection. I have to return later to deal with this application.

Grounds of Appeal

1. “The trial Tribunal misdirected itself in law when it held, to wit:

“Surely, the Tribunal would be abdicating its statutory Responsibility and function if armed with the above recited paragraph 15(3) of Schedule 5 of Decree 5 of 1999. It refuses to entertain evidence which goes to explain some ambiguity apparent on some exhibits legally tendered before it.”

And this error occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

2. The trial Tribunal misdirected itself on the fact when it held, to wit;

“We are amazed that despite the seriousness of the allegation made by the petitioner, there is absolute paucity of evidence in his case. There is no proof of non-compliance with the law governing the election and there is no proof that the petitioner scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election. The petitioner cannot therefore be declared as the elected member of house of Representative for Langtang North and South Federal Constituency of Plateau State. The petition fails in its entirety and is hereby dismissed.

3. The Trial Tribunal erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction to evaluate the evidence of the respondent that was not pleaded, to wit:

“It is noteworthy that the evidence of this witness was not impeached or controverted.” And this evaluation without jurisdiction occasioned a miscarriage of justice.