Mohammed Kachalla Jumbam V. Usman Adamu & Ors (1999)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
UMOREN, J.C.A.
This matter stems from the recent election into Local Government Councils in the Federation of Nigeria.
The nation went to the polls on the 5th December, 1998 to elect chairmen and Councilors for the several Local Government Councils in the States. The appellant and 1st respondent were among the multitudes of aspirants and contestants who contested the election. In this case their constituency was Tarmuwa Local Government Council in Yobe State.
The appellant and the 1st respondent are candidates who ran for the chairmanship of the said Tarmuwa Local Government Council on the platform of People’s Democratic Party (P.D.P) and the All People’s Party (A.P.P.).
The 1st respondent was returned as being duly elected wherefore the appellant filed a petition at the Yobe Local Government Council Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Damaturu. After hearing evidence and addresses from counsel, the tribunal in a considered judgment dismissed the petition.
Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Election Tribunal, the petitioner has appealed to this court upon three grounds of appeal. These grounds without their particulars read:-
(1) The tribunal was in error of law and came to a wrong conclusion having regard to the circumstances of the petition when it held that the non-compliance with the provisions of the Local Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 36 of 1998 did not substantially affect the result of the election and therefore dismissed the petition.
(2) The tribunal was in error and came to a wrong conclusion when it held that it is possible for voters whose registration cards were not stamped and signed by the presiding officer at the polling unit to have voted, omitting to avert to the entire evidence before it and the procedure at election.
(3) The decision of the tribunal is against the weight of evidence.
Briefs were filed and exchanged. The appellant at page 1 of his brief formulated, in my view, one issue for determination as follows:-
- Whether having regard to Decree No. 36 of 1998, the petition and the replies of the parties, the evidence and all the circumstances of this matter, the tribunal was right to have dismissed the petition.
In arguing the appeal the learned counsel submitted that the issue formulated covers all the grounds of appeal. He argues that the appellant’s case was predicated on the election result at Koka polling unit within Sungul/Koka ward where the 1st respondent was alleged to have scored 404 votes as against 21 votes declared for the appellant.
The 1st and 2nd – 4th respondents adopted the issue as formulated by the appellant. The 1st respondent agreed that the main issue was that the tribunal was right in law having regard to the evidence before it to have dismissed the petition as it did. The 2nd – 4th respondents also agreed that the crux of the matter in the tribunal below was whether the return (sic) of the 1st respondent as duly elected Chairman of Tarmuwa Local Government Council by 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents was right and valid.
This appeal will, from the views formulated by the appellant and respondents, appear to be based on issues of fact. It is trite that an appellate court will not interfere with the findings of a trial court provided such finding was not perverse and not the proper exercise of judicial discretion. In Uzoechi v. Onyemve (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 587) 339 at 340, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact by a trial court once the findings are based on evidence upon the pleadings of the parties. The appellate court can however interfere where the trial court failed to make findings or arrived at inconsistent finding on a crucial issue raised by the parties.
In the instant case, the finding of the tribunal was supported by evidence and there is no obvious error in the judgment of the tribunal.
It is trite that where a court of trial unquestionably evaluated the evidence and appraised the facts in this case, it is not open to a court of appeal to substitute its own views for those of the trial court which are abundantly supported by evidence.
I see no reason to disturb the judgment of the tribunal, I hereby dismiss this appeal and assess costs at N2,000.00 in favour of the 1st respondent and N2,000.00 in favour of the 3rd – 4th respondents.
Other Citations: (1999)LCN/0611(CA)