CORAM

---

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE  – JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. MUHAMMADU DANGI JULI2. ABUBAKAR LABBO GWANDU

---

1. ALH. YAHAYA MOH’D2. BALA AHMED GWANDU3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER4. THE RETURNING OFFICER5 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER6. INEC

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In Kebbi State, Muhammadu Dangi Juli and Abubakar Labbo Gwandu (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) contested the Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship respectively of Gwandu Local Government Area under the platform of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Their opponents Alhaji Yahaya Mohammed and Bala Ahmed Gwandu (hereinafter referred to as the 1st and 2nd Respondents) contested on the platform of All Peoples Party (APP). At the end of the election, the 1st and 2nd Respondents were returned as duly elected candidates having scored 8,903 votes as against 8,441 votes declared for the Appellants. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the result hence, they filed a petition before the Local Government Election Tribunal Kebbi State (hereinafter referred the Tribunal). The Petition was later amended with the leave of the Tribunal. In the said amended petition, the Appellants challenged the return of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as the duly elected Chairman and Vice Chairman of Gwandu Local Government. The 1st and 2nd Respondents and 3rd to 6th Respondents filed their replies in which they denied the allegations contained in the Petition. The Tribunal heard the parties and their witnesses and found in favour of the Respondents. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment and have appealed to this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether upon a proper evaluation of all the evidence led, the Tribunal was entitled to hold that at various polling stations complained (namely Yalango and Filin Kasuwa), was free and fair and the votes returned there at (sic) lawful? Whether or not the Tribunal was under obligation to resolve one way or the other the issue of irregularities complained of in relation to Filin and Takarin Fulani stations. In other words, whether or not the parties were entitled to have these issues resolved by the Tribunal below?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PLEADINGS – CONSEQUENCES ADDUCING EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO A PARTY’S PLEADINGS

---

“It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and any matter which a party wishes to rely on in his case must be pleaded. It follows that evidence which is adduced contrary to a party’s pleading should be ignored.”

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHETHER THE ROLE OF AN APPELLATE COURT IS TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE

---

“I observe that the role of an appellate court is not to try cases. An appellate court does not evaluate evidence. If however the finding of a trial court is perverse and cannot be justified by the evidence adduced before the court, an appellate court then will intervene and interpret such finding of fact or facts.”

---

FINDINGS OF FACT – WHETHER IT IS THE BUSINESS OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS MADE AT THE TRIAL COURT

---

“It is the law that once the trial court made a correct finding of facts based on what it has seen and heard it is not the business of the Appeal Court to interfere with same. Cases or issues are not tried in Appellate Courts. Trial must be left with the trial courts that are why they are called trial courts. Oyejola V Agboola (1996) 8 NWLR (PT. 411) 88 at 1058.”

---

PLEADINGS – STATUS OF EVIDENCE, WHICH IS AT VARIANCE WITH AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS

---

“It is the law that evidence which is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue and should be discarded by the court. In this appeal even though the appellant through PW7 was able to give evidence on certain facts but same had not been pleaded. It would amount to granting the party what it did not ask for if we were to oblige the Appellant. The appellant to me is trying at this stage of the case to create a different case from what be did not think of earlier on. He cannot do that. The law does not support him. See Lemonu V Alli-Balogun (1975)3 SC 87 and Ekpenyong V Ayi (1973)5 SC 169. When confronted with a similar issues, Iguh JSC states in Oviawe V I.R.P. (Nig.) Ltd (1997)3 NWLR (PT-.492) thus:
‘…it cannot be over emphasized that parties are bound by their pleadings and that evidence which is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue and should be disregarded by the court.’

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Decree No. 36 (Local Government) (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree 1998|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---