CORAM

---

BABA ALKALI BA’ABA,  JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. HON. (DR) YUSUF DATTI BABA – AHMED2. ALL NIGERIA PEOPLES’ PARTY APPELLANTS

---

1. JIBRIL ADAMU2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL RESPONDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 368 OTHERS RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Petitioner/Appellant was sponsored by the 2nd Petitioner/Appellant, the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) while the 1st Respondent contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in an election into the House of Representatives of Nigeria representing Zaria Federal Constituency. At the end of the election, the 2nd Respondent (INEC) declared the 1st Respondent winner of the election. Dissatisfied with the declaration, the Petitioners/Appellants filed a petition at the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal sitting in Kaduna. The Petitioners/Appellants contended that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006, in five wards out of thirteen wards in the constituency and that there was no election in one ward but mere allocation of votes. The tribunal dismissed the petition, hence this appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether there was Election in Kufena ward in the 21st of April, 2007 elections in compliance with Electoral Act, 2006 and the manual for Election Officials 2007.Whether the Learned Trial Judges of the Tribunal properly discharged their duty dispassionately in evaluating all the oral and documentary evidence in the Petition and arrived at correct decision.Whether the Learned Trial Judges of The Tribunal were right when they treated Exhibits G – G8 and 11 – 117 (All duplicate originals of EC8A (ii) 4 of Dutsen Abba and Dembo wards) as inadmissible in law on the basis of lack of source or foundation. Whether the Petitioners/Appellants have proved falsification of the election results of Dutsen Abba ward and the tribunal was entitled to collate the genuine election result.Whether the Petitioners/Appellants have rebutted the presumption of genuiness or authenticity of the election results of INEC in the Trial of the PetitionWhether the 1st Respondent complied with the mandatory provision of paragraph 15 of the first schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006 and what is the effect of non- compliance with the provision in relation to the Petition and the 1st Respondents case.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EVIDENCE -ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO A MATTER GOES TO NO ISSUE

---

‘‘An allegation or evidence given in Court or Tribunal against a person who is not made a party to the case goes to no issue.’’ PER. J. I. OKORO, JCA

---

FINDINGS OF FACT OF A TRIAL COURT- INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFER WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT

---

‘‘An appellate Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of fact of the trial Court except such finding is found to be perverse, or that the Lower Court drew wrong inference from accepted facts or applied wrong principles of law to such facts. See INEC Vs. Ray (Supra), Igodo Vs. Owulo (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt 601) 70, Njoku Vs. Osinuri (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt 601) 120, Odali Vs. Ahmadu (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt 601) 22.’’PER. J. I. OKORO, JCA

---

POWER OF THE COURT TO COLLATE VOTES – FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO OBJECT TO THE VOTES SET OUT BY THE PETITIONER GIVES THE COURT UNFETTERED POWER TO COLLATE SUCH VOTES.

---

‘‘Where a petitioner has properly set out the votes and the Respondent fails or neglects to object to such votes, the Court shall have unfettered power to collate same and declare the result appropriately.’’PER. J. I. OKORO, JCA

---

DECISION OF A COURT- WHETHER A COURT HAS INHERENT POWERS TO OVERRULE ITSELF

---

‘‘A Court has no inherent powers to overrule itself except the judgment or order is shown to be a nullity. Where a Court has admitted a document in evidence, it cannot turn around to reject it.The Court should concentrate on the value to attach to it except the original decision is found to be a nullity. See Ogbu Vs. 17 Urum (1981) 4 S.C. 1. Obinonure Vs. Erinosho (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 250 and Nwosu Vs. Udeaja (1990) 1 N.W.L. (Pt. 25) 198.’’PER. J. I. OKORO, JCA

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE -THE APPELLANT IS DUTY BOUND TO SPECIFY THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO EVALUATE.

---

‘‘Where the complaint on appeal is that the trial Court failed to evaluate the evidence before it, the appellant is duty bound to specify the evidence which the trial Court failed to evaluate. See Ejoh Vs. Wilcox (2003) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt.838) 488, Onwudinjo Vs. Diniobi (2006), N.W.L.R. (Pt. 961) 318.’’ PER. J. I. OKORO, JCA

---

PROOF OF FALSIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULT –DUTY OF A PETITIONER IN PROVING FALSIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULT

---

‘‘I agree with the position of the law that in order to prove falsification of election results, two sets of the result must be pleaded and evidence given thereto. That is to say, one set considered to be genuine or authentic and the other falsified. The onus of producing the two set of results lies on the petitioner and not the Respondent. See Sechegba Vs. Penawou (1999) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt 618) 354.’’PER. J. I. OKORO, JCA

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – RECOURSE HAS TO BE MADE TO THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY EVALUATED BY THE TRIBUNAL

---

‘‘In order to determine whether the Lower Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence led before it, or not, recourse has to be made to the judgment itself.’’PER. J. I. OKORO, JCA

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Electoral Act, 2006Evidence Act

---

CLICK HERE TO READ ULL JUDGMENT