Mohammed Tukur V. Maryam Umar Yar’adua & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading judgment)

In compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended), the 3rd Respondent conducted an election to the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Katsina Central Federal Constituency on the 9th April, 2011. The record of this appeal indicates that both the 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent were amongst the candidates who contested the election, after which, the 1st Respondent, per Form EC 8E(i), was returned and declared as the winner of the election on that same 9th April, 2011 by the 3rd Respondent.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents found the result distasteful and then proceeded to the National and State House of Assembly Election Tribunal For Katsina State, sitting at Katsina, to file an election petition praying for determination of the following:

“(i). That the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

(ii). That the 1st Petitioner who scored the majority of lawful votes at the election be declared validly elected and returned the winner of the election.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO i and ii above:

(iii). That the 1st Respondent was not duly elected or returned.

(iv). That the election of the 1st Respondent was null and void and a fresh or bye-election ordered to be conducted by the 2nd Respondent for the Katsina Central Federal Constituency.

It was hinged on the ground that the Appellant was not a rightful or validly nominated candidate of the 5th Respondent at the election held on the 9th April, 2011. The 1st and 2nd Respondents heavily relied on this Court’s decision in Appeal No. CA/K/133/2011 between CPC vs. Senator Garba Lado & others, now reported in (2011) 14 NWLR Part 1266 page 40 to strengthen their argument.

The Petition proceeded to hearing and determination. The 1st Respondent called one witness while the Appellant testified for himself. The 3rd and 4th Respondents called one witness.

The 1st Respondent’s lone witness, Ahmed Danbata, a Legal Practitioner and the Legal Adviser to the 2nd Respondent testified on 22/7/11 and adopted his assertions in the two Witness Statements on Oath he swore to on 29/4/11 and 21/5/11 respectively as his evidence in the proceedings. They were received in evidence as Exhibits 1 and 1A respectively. Exhibit J in Petition No. KT/EPT/HR/1/11 was admitted from the Bar on the same 22/7/11. It is instructive to note that the evidence led by the Petitioners, i.e. 1st and 2nd Respondents centred only on the issue, whether the Appellant was actually nominated and sponsored by the 5th Respondent at the said election. Not an iota of evidence was adduced to demolish the Appellant’s cling to the majority of the votes cast at the election.

The Appellant testified for himself on 9/8/11. His witness statement on Oath, sworn to on 17/8/11 was admitted as Exhibit K. Curiously, the questions put to him under cross-examination by respective counsel for the parties were, primarily, on his alleged emergence as a CPC candidate on 15/1/2011, the judgment of Court of Appeal in Exhibit B setting aside the judgment of Federal High Court i.e. Exhibit A1. Exhibit C is the declaration of result Form.

Nuhu Ajiyana Audu testified on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein. His Statement on Oath deposed to on 24/5/11 was received in evidence as Exhibit C.

In it’s judgment, the trial Tribunal expressed inter-alia thus: