Baba Ahmed v Adamu - AKSJ Legal Resource Center

Baba Ahmed v Adamu (2008) CLR 7(j) (SC)
Judgement delivered on July 14 th 2008
{Brief}
- Election tribunal
- Over voting or under voting
- Electoral malpractice
- Evaluation of evidence
{Facts}
This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly/Governorship and
Legislative Houses Election Tribunal sitting in Kaduna in petition No.
EPT/KD/NA/001 delivered on 22 nd November, 2007 wherein the Tribunal dismissed the
petition of the Appellants. Elections into the House of Representatives of Nigeria
were held throughout the Federation on the 21 st of April, 2007 including Zaria
Federal Constituency. The 1 st Appellant was sponsored by the 2 nd Appellant, the All
Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) in the election while the 1 st Respondent contested on
the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The said elections were
conducted by the 2 nd Respondent, the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) with the support of the 3 rd to 369 th Respondents. At the end of the
election, the 2 nd Respondent declared the 1 st Respondent the winner of the election with
67, 745 votes as against the 1 st appellant's score of 37,954 votes. Dissatisfied with the
return of the 1 st Respondent as winner, the appellants filed a petition which was
dismissed. He further filed a Notice of appeal dated 30 th November, 2007 on the 3 rd
day of December, 2007 containing fourteen grounds of appeal. The main grouse of the
appellants in the petition was in respect of five wards out of thirteen wards in the
Constituency. That there was non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral
Act, 2006, in the elections of Dutsen Abba, Gyellesu, Wuciciri, and Dembo wards and
that there was no election at all in Kufena ward but mere allocation of votes. The
Appellants however accepted the result of the election as being free and fair in the
remaining eight wards.
{Issues}:
1. "Whether there was Election in Kufena ward on the 21 st of April, 2007
elections in compliance with Electoral Act, 2006 and the manual for
Election Officials 2007.

2. 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.
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judges of The Tribunal were right when they
treated Exhibits G - G8 and 1' - 1 17 (All duplicate originals of EC8A (ii)
of Dutsen Abba and Dembo wards) as inadmissible in law on the basis
of lack of source or foundation.
4. 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.
5. Whether the Petitioners/Appellants have rebutted the presumption of
genuiness or authenticity of the election results of INEC in the Trial of
the Petition.
6. Whether the 1 st 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 elation to the Petition
and the 1 st Respondents case."
{Held Summary}: (Unanimously Dismissing the Appeal).
1. Allegation made against a Person who is not a Party to the case –
Effect of
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. The acts of PDP agents cannot
be attributable to the Respondents and they cannot be asked to answer for
the alleged acts of another.
2. Submission of over-voting not backed up by Evidence - Effect of
It is trite that address of Counsel cannot substitute for evidence that is
supposed to be led before the Court. The submission on over voting, not
being backed by evidence goes to no issue.
I hold the view that elections were held in Kufena ward as even the
petitioners refer to acts of voting. The issue was not of irregularities at the
election but that there was no election. This issue, to my mind, does not avail

the appellants. The second issue is whether the Lower Tribunal
dispassionately evaluated all oral and documentary evidence placed before it.
3. Evaluation of evidence by Election Tribunal
It is trite that for a trial Court or Tribunal to successfully arrive at a reasonable
decision, it must study, analyse and evaluate the whole gamult of evidence
placed before it. It is the primary function of a trial Court or Tribunal to evaluate
evidence and ascribe probative value to it since it saw, heard and assessed the
witnesses. 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.
4. Falsification of Result in an Election Petition – Proof of
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. However, in the instant case, there is no
basis for comparison as the "result" considered by the appellants to be
genuine is only as touching only nine units of the 31 units in the ward whereas
the one termed "falsified" has all the 31 units. The Lower Tribunal had held
that the appellants failed to place two sets of results before it and I have no
reason to disagree with them. In other words, there was nothing to compare
in the circumstance. This issue does not also avail the appellants.
{Held - Lead Judgment}: Delivered by Okoro JCA:-
This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly/Governorship and
Legislative Houses Election Tribunal sitting in Kaduna in petition No.
EPT/KD/NA/001 delivered on 22 nd November, 2007 wherein the Tribunal dismissed the
petition of the Appellants. Elections into the House of Representatives of Nigeria
were held throughout the Federation on the 21 st of April, 2007 including Zaria
Federal Constituency. The 1 st Appellant was sponsored by the 2 nd Appellant, the All
Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) in the election while the 1 st Respondent contested on
the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The said elections were
conducted by the 2 nd Respondent, the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) with the support of the 3 rd to 369 th Respondents. At the end of the
election, the 2 nd Respondent declared the 1 st Respondent the winner of the election with
67, 745 votes as against the 1 st appellant's score of 37,954 votes. Dissatisfied with the
return of the 1 st Respondent as winner, the appellants filed a petition which was
dismissed. He further filed a Notice of appeal dated 30 th November, 2007 on the 3 rd

day of December, 2007 containing fourteen grounds of appeal. The main grouse of the
appellants in the petition was in respect of five wards out of thirteen wards in the
Constituency. That there was non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral
Act, 2006, in the elections of Dutsen Abba, Gyellesu, Wuciciri, and Dembo wards and
that there was no election at all in Kufena ward but mere allocation of votes. The
Appellants however accepted the result of the election as being free and fair in the
remaining eight wards.
From the fourteen grounds of appeal, the appellants have formulated six issues for the
determination of this appeal. The issues are as follows:-
1. "Whether there was Election in Kufena ward in the 21 st of April, 2007
elections in compliance with Electoral Act, 2006 and the manual for
Election Officials 2007.
2. 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.
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judges of The Tribunal were right when they
treated Exhibits G - G8 and 1'- I 17 (All duplicate originals of EC8A (ii) of
Dutsen Abba and Dembo wards) as inadmissible in law on the basis of
lack of source or foundation.
4. Whether the Petitioners/Appellants have proved falsification of the
election results of Dutsen Abba D ward and the tribunal was entitled to
collate the genuine election result.
5. Whether the Petitioners/Appellants have rebutted the presumption of
genuiness or authenticity of the E election results of INEC in the Trial of
the Petition.
6. Whether the 1 st 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 F relation to the Petition and
the 1 st Respondents case." The Learned Counsel for the 1 st Respondent however
submits that only three issues are necessary for the determination of
this appeal. The issues are:-

1. "Whether the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the
provisions of the Electoral Act. 2006.
2. Whether the 1 st Respondent was the winner of the election by majority of
lawful votes.
3. Whether the Lower Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence before it."
The Learned Counsel for the 2 nd to 369 th Respondents formulated what he considers more
appropriate issues which are three in number as follows:-
1. Whether the election was characterized by corrupt practices, irregularities
and non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006.
2. Whether the 1 st Respondent was the winner of the election by majority of
lawful votes.
3. Whether the Lower Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence before it.
Although the two sets of Respondents have submitted three issues each for the
determination of this appeal, and these issues are the same, and having made
replies to the Appellants' arguments in their six issues, I shall determine this appeal
based on the issues formulated by the appellants without losing sight of the issues
of the Respondents.
On the first issue, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants by their Counsel that
where voter's register had no marking, but forms ECS A (ii) are produced showing
scores. Such scores should be excluded from the valid votes scored by a candidate and
that where a party alleges that election took place, he has to call at least one witness
who voted to testify. This, he submitted the Respondents failed to do. He cited the
cases of Nweke v. Ejims (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.625) 39 and INEC vs. Ray (2004) 14
NWLR (Pt.892). 92. He submitted that Exhibits A, B, B1, D and D1, being the voters
cards of the petitioners' agents, were not marked or stamped. Also that Exhibits E18
— E52 being voters registers tendered in evidence were also not marked. That this is
clear evidence that elections was not held in the Kufena ward.
Learned Counsel further submitted that Exhibit E53 (Form EC 25B) i.e. Electoral
Material Receipt for Kufena ward shows that 16,000 ballot papers were received for
the election but that the total number of votes cast in the ward was 16,897 showing
an outstanding of 897 ballot papers unaccounted for. He urged the court to hold that

this is evidence of over voting which offends Section 54(2) of the Electoral Act,
2006. He further urged the Court to nullify the results in the eight units where
there was over voting.
Finally on this issue he urged the Court to compare Exhibits E1-E15 of Form
EC8A (ii) and it will be revealed that only one person filled all the forms
whereas it is supposed to have been filled by their respective presiding officers.
He cited the case of Chukwura v. Anyakora (2006) All F.W.L.R. (Pt.302) 121.
He then urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants.
The Learned Counsel for the 1 st Respondent submitted that the evidence of
PW1 - 5 who testified on Kufena ward was to the effect that collation centre was
changed and they refused to go. Secondly, that their testimony that PDP agents
used force, tear gased them and took election materials to new collation centre
confirmed that election took place but since PDP was not joined in the petition,
the evidence goes to no issue. Finally, that Exhibits E and W show that election
took place in Kufena Ward and this was not rebutted.
The Learned Counsel for the second set of Respondents submitted exactly
what the 1 st Respondent had presented on the first issue and there is no need to
summarise it again. They then urged this Court to resolve this issue against the
appellants.
Three Exhibits have been referred to by the appellants to show that elections did not
take place in Kufena ward. These are Exhibits A, B, B1, D & D1, E18 - E52 and
E53. Exhibits A, B & D are voters cards of the agents of the Petitioners. Exhibits
E18 - E52 are the voters Registers while Exhibit E53 is the Electoral Material
Receipt. I have carefully examined the Exhibits and note that the voters card of
the Petitioners agents have not been stamped to show that they had voted.
However, the Register of voters i.e. Exhibits E18 - E52 have been marked to show
that some voters presented themselves for election on that date. The fact that not
all the names were ticked shows that not all the registered voters may have
presented themselves for voting. I note that in Exhibit E53, the figures 12.000 and
4.000 refer to Kufena ward. Although, the Exhibit does not disclose what the figures
stand for, there is however no reason to disbelieve the appellants that they refer to
ballot papers.
The complaint of the Appellants in this issue is that there was no election in Kufena
ward but in their argument. they present a case of over voting. The question is. if there
was no election, how then did the over voting come about'?

I seem to agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents
to the effect that when INEC changed collation centre due to security reasons, the
appellants simply refused to go there. Their testimony that PDP agents tear
gased them and forcefully took election materials to a new collation centre does
not avail them as PDP was not made a party in the petition. 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, The acts of PDP agents cannot be attributable to the
Respondents and they cannot be asked to answer for the alleged acts of another.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants had submitted that the change of the
collation centre on the day of the election is a contravention of Section 47 of the
Electoral Act, 2006 which substantially affected the conduct of the election in
Kufena ward. Section 47 of the Electoral Act states:-
"The Commission shall not later than 14 days before the day of the election,
cause Notice of Poll to be published, in such manner as it may deem fit, a
notice specifying the following matters, that is to say:-
(a) the day and hours fixed for the poll;
(b) by way of indication, the persons entitled to vote, and
(c) the location of the polling stations" The above section does not
mention collation centre and it is not proper to read collation centre into
it. However, the Dw1, on page 765 of the Record of proceedings
testified A that collation centre was changed from Unguwar
Dankali to Tudun Sarki and that a notice to that effect was issued to
the parties before the date of the election. The appellants have not
shown how the change in collation centre affected the result of the
election and I have not seen the said effect. Thus although the Dw1.
confirmed that collation centre was changed, it was not changed on
the date of the election.
On the issue of over voting, there is no evidence to support this. Learned Counsel on
pages 805 806 of the c record tabulates a table to show over voting. I have perused
the evidence of PW1 - 5 there is nothing to support this tabulation. It is trite that
address of Counsel cannot substitute for evidence that is supposed to be led before
the Court. See Anthony vs. Governor of Lagos State (2003) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt.828) 288.
The submission on over voting, not being backed by evidence goes to no issue.

I hold the view that elections were held in Kufena ward as even the petitioners
refer to acts of voting. The g issue was not of irregularities at the election but
that there was no election. This issue, to my mind, does not avail the appellants.
The second issue is whether the Lower Tribunal dispassionately evaluated all
oral and documentary evidence placed before it.
The Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was failure to properly
evaluate evidence in the various ratios of the judgment appealed against and
this failure relates to both oral and documentary evidence. That in view of the fact
that the PW1 was crossed examined in relation to Kufena ward only, without any
question on Wuciciri and Dutsen Abba wards, the Lower Court ought to have acted
upon the uncontroverted or uncontradicted evidence in relation to the two wards.
He cited the cases of Ali Basheer v. Poly Camp (1992) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.236) 491,
Broadline Enterprises Limited v. Monterel v Maritime Corporation (1995) 9
N.W.L.R. (Pt.417) 1.
Furthermore, he submitted that the Lower Court failed in its primary function
to properly evaluate the evidence of corrupt practices put forward by the
petitioners. That in an election matter in which substantial part of the evidence
required to resolve the issues in controversy is documentary in nature, an Appeal
Tribunal should examine the documentary evidence and draw inference from
them as if it was the Tribunal. He referred to the case of Mbakurta v. Abbo (1998) 6
N.W.L.R. (Pt.554) 456. Learned Counsel then urged the Court to evaluate the
evidence by comparing the documentation in Exhibits I 1 - I 17 and Exhibit J and
nullify the result in Exhibit J.
The two sets of Respondents in their respective briefs, submitted that the Lower
Tribunal diligently carried out this duty of evaluation of evidence before arriving
at its decision. They urged this Court to so hold.
It is trite that for a trial Court or Tribunal to successfully arrive at a reasonable
decision, it must study, analyse and evaluate the whole gamut of evidence placed
before it. It is the primary function of a trial Court or Tribunal to evaluate evidence
and ascribe probative value to it since it saw, heard and assessed the witnesses.
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 v. Wilcox (2003) 13 N. W.L.R. (Pt.838) 488,
Onwudinjo v. Diniobi N.W.L.R. (2006) (Pt.961) 318.1 need to restate the law that

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 v. Osinuri (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.601) 120, Qdali v. Ahmadu.
(1999) 5 N. W.L.R. (Pt.601) 22.
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.
Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to evaluate the evidence led at
the trial and particularly, that the Tribunal failed to evaluate Exhibits I" 17 and
Exhibit J. On page 862 of the Record of appeal, the Tribunal states as follows:-
"PW10 who is an ANPP ward supervisor agent stated that he collected the
results from his agents and these results were tendered in evidence
before the Tribunal……….There is no evidence as to the source of the
Exhibits. The Exhibits, that is, Exhibits I 1 - I 17 were just dumped on the
Tribunal without linking them to the source…………..The evidence
regarding these exhibits are no more than hearsay as it is inadmissible."
From the above quotation from the judgment of the Lower Tribunal, I am of the
view that the Tribunal not only evaluated both the oral and material evidence laid
before it, but that it also assessed same and declared that they had no probative
value. In fact it pronounced that Exhibits I 1 -1 17 are hear say and inadmissible. In
other words, although the Exhibits were tendered and admitted into evidence, they
lacked any probative value as they are hearsay. The tribunal even cited and relied
on the case of Hashidu v. Goje (2003) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt.843) 352.
It is now elementary to repeat the fact that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in law.
In the instant case, the PW10 had to rely on information supplied to him by third
parties as regard the alleged conduct of elections in the various units of the ward.
In this case neither the persons who prepared Exhibits I' - I 17 nor the agents who
were physically present at the various units were called as witnesses at least to
say something as regards the exhibits. I hold the view that the Tribunal was on
firm ground when it declared Exhibits I 1 - I 17 as hearsay. In other words, the
Tribunal did its best in evaluating the said evidence. See UBN v. Ishola (2001) 15
N.W.L.R. (Pt.735) 47, Armels Transport Ltd v. Atinuke Martins (1990) All
N.L.R. 27 INEC v. Ray (Supra).

Apart from this, the Lower Tribunal on pages 859 - 865 of the Record considered
ward by ward the five disputed wards in the constituency. The tribunal summarized
the evidence, the exhibits tendered and made its conclusions. It is therefore
uncharitable to say that the tribunal failed to evaluate the evidence. In the
circumstance, I resolve this issue against the appellants.
The 3 rd issue has to do with the refusal of the Lower Tribunal to act on Exhibits G - G8
and I' - I 17 - I had already made my views known with regard to Exhibits I' - I 17 which
1 think applies to Exhibits G - G8 and 1 do not intend to repeat myself here but
suffice it to say that a distinction has to be made between a situation where a Court
having admitted a document in evidence, turns around at the end to expunge it
from evidence and another situation where, having admitted such a document,
the Court does not attach much weight to it. In the first instance, that will create a
situation of the Court reversing itself to which the case of Nwanosike v. John Hold
PLC (2006) All N.W.L.R. (Pt.301) 1809 at 1830 cited by Learned Counsel for the
Appellants applies which is to the effect that the Court cannot reverse itself in the
circumstance. The second situation does not mean that the evidence has been
rejected. No. It is part of the evidence. The only thing is that the Court does not attach
much weight to it as in the instant case where the Tribunal said that the Exhibits
arc hearsay although it had admitted them in evidence under Section 91(2) of the
Evidence Act. I need however to state that 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 v. Urum (1981) 4 S.C. 1. Obinonure v. Erinosho (1966) 1 All
N.L.R. 250 and Nwosu v. Udeaja (1990) 1 N.W.L.R (Pt.25) 198. In the instant case,
the issue is not that of the Court reversing itself. It relates to not attaching much
weight to it. I therefore resolve this issue against the appellants.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants in the fourth issue submitted that the
appellants had proved falsification of the election result of Dutsen Abba ward.
That the appellants had tendered two sets of results to prove falsification and that
they had discharged the burden placed on them. The case of Ojo v. Esohe (1999) 5
N.W.L.R. (Pt 603) 444 and Atiupekpe v. Joe (1999) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt.607) 428 were
cited and relied upon. Learned Counsel urged this court to rely on Exhibits G Series,
reject F series and declare the result of that ward a nullity.
The two set of Respondents submitted that the appellants did not lead evidence to
prove the two sets of results but rely on the address of counsel which cannot avail
them. They urged that this issue be resolved against the appellants.

I note that Exhibits F - F30 contain all the results of the 31 units of Dutsen Abba
ward. The Tribunal had noted that Dutsen Abba ward has 31 units. Exhibits G - G8
purports to be the result of election in nine units of the ward. These are the two sets
of results which the appellants urge this Court to compare. The Tribunal had noted
that there is no evidence as to the whereabouts of the other 22 units of the ward in
Exhibits G series. In other words, result of the election of the ward in Exhibit G
series is not complete. Only result in 9 of the 31 units are in Exhibits G series. 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 v. Penawou (1999) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.618) 354.
However, in the instant case, there is no basis for comparison as the "result"
considered by the appellants to be genuine is only as touching only nine units of
the 31 units in the ward whereas the one termed "falsified" has all the 31 units.
The Lower Tribunal had held that the appellants failed to place two sets of results
before it and I have no reason to disagree with them. In other words, there was
nothing to compare in the circumstance. This issue does not also avail the
appellants.
The fifth issue for consideration, to any mind is a summary or repeat of the
arguments in the four issues already determined. It is therefore unnecessary to
repeat the exercise here.
On the last issue submitted by the appellants for consideration in this appeal, it
was the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants that since the
appellants case at the tribunal was that the 1 st Appellant scored majority of lawful
votes, it was therefore mandatory for the 1 st Respondent to have set out the votes
he objected to as presented by the appellants. Such failure means that the Lower
Tribunal or this court can collate the result as provided by the petitioner. He then
urged the court to collate the result in Exhibit G - G8 and that in 1'- I 17 for Dutsen
Abba and Dembo wards respectively. The appellants placed reliance on the case
of Hassan,, vs. Tumu (1999) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt.624) 700 and Chukwura v.
Anyakora (2006) All F.W.L.R. (Pt.302) 121.
The respondents submitted on the issue that apart from the fact that the issue was
never canvassed at the court below, paragraph 15 of the 1 st schedule to the
Electoral Act, 2006, refers to a situation where the petitioner in support of the
ground that he won the election by majority of lawful votes, sets forth the votes in

each said wards to establish that fact. That where he pleads that some votes were
excluded without stating them and without final figure of how he won the
election, the Respondent has no figure to contest. The Respondents rely on
the case of Balami v. Bwala & Ors (1993) 1 N. W.L.R. (Pt.267) 51 to opine that
the Petitioner is also required to submit a list of objection to the votes of the
Respondent.
We are being called upon here to state the purport of paragraph 15 of the 1 st
schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006 and also to state the effect of non compliance
thereof. That paragraph states:-
"When a petitioner claims the seat alleging the highest number of votes
cast at the election, the party defending the election or return at the
election shall set out clearly in his reply particulars of the votes if any,
which he objects to and the reasons for his objection against such votes,
showing how he intends to prove at the hearing that c the petitioner is not
entitled to succeed."
This paragraph which requires the respondent to properly set out the votes
lie objects against the petitioners, presupposes that the petitioner has himself
set out the votes he believes could have given him victory. Where the petitioner
fails in this duty, there is nothing for the Respondent to contest. See Salami v.
Bwala & Ors (Supra). Where a petitioner has properly set out the vote and the
Respondent fails or neglects to object to such vote the Court shall have unfettered
power to collate same and declare the result appropriately. The reason being that
it is an unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence which courts are bound to
apply provided the evidence is cogent and reliable. In the instant appeal, I need
not F dissipate my energy on Exhibits I 1 - I' 7 which 1 had already made
pronouncement upon but having regard to Exhibit G - G8 which Learned
Counsel has urged us to collate, I am of the view that it is not possible to do
it. The simple reason is that the ward has 31 units and only results in nine units
are contained in Exhibits G - G8. As the appellants could, not produce all the
result of the 31 units in the wards, it is difficult to say what would have been
the result of the election if the result of the other 22 units are added to the nine
units, It seems to me that the Respondents were not obliged to object to
an incomplete result.
The outcome of this appeal should be measured on the fact that election results in
eight of the 13 wards of Tukur Tukur, Tudun Wada, Kwarbai A. Kwarbai B. Kaura,
Limancin Kona. Unguwar Fatima and Unguwar Jama were adjudged by both the

Appellants and Respondents as having been free and fair for which the 1 st appellant
scored 37,954 votes against the 1 st Respondents score of 67.745 votes. The Lower
Tribunal however added the votes of three wards won by the 1 st appellant with 13.001
votes against the 1 st Respondents score of 3,313 votes which brought the total to
50,955 votes for the 1 st appellant and 71,058 votes for the first Respondent. Having
accepted results in 8 wards as having been given in a free and fair atmosphere and
having been given votes in three wards he allegedly scored majority of lawful votes and
the 1 st appellant still could not secure majority of lawful votes. I agree with the lower
tribunal that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions
of the Electoral Act, 2006. In sum, I hold that the appellants have failed to show why
this court should disturb the outcome of the petition as pronounced upon by the
Lower Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. I
affirm the decision of the Lower Tribunal in petition No EPT/KD/NA/001/2007
which judgment was delivered on 22 nd November, 2007. I award cost of N20,000 in
favour of the 1 st Respondent only.
Appeal dismissed.
Jega and Oredola JJCA both concurred with the lead judgement
{Nigerian Cases referred to}
All Basheer v. Poly Camp (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.236) 491.
Anthony v. Governor of Lagos State (2003) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt.828) 288.
Armels Transport Ltd. v. Atinuke Martins (1990) All N.L.R.27.
Atiupekpe v. Joe (1999) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt.607) 428.
Balami v. Bwala & Ors (1993) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.267) 51.
Breadline Enterprises Limited vs. Monterely Maritime
Corporation (1995) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.417) 1.
Chukwura v. Anyakora (2006) All FWLR (Pt.302) 121.
Ejoh v. Wilcox (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 488.
Hashidu v. Goje (2003) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt.843) 352.
Hassan v. Tumu (1999) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt.624) 700.
Igodo v. Owulo (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.601) 70.
INEC v. Ray (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.892). 92.
Mbakurta v. Abbo (1998) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt.554) 456.
Njoku v. Osinuri (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.601) 120,
Nwanosike v. John Hold Plc (2006) All F.W.L.R. (Pt.301) 1809 at 1830.
Nweke v. Ejims (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.625) 39.
Nwosu v. Udeaja (1990) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.25) 198.
Obinonure v. Erinosho (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 250.

Odali v. Ahmadu (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.601) 22.
Ogbu v. Urum (1981) 4 S.C. 1.
Ojo v. Esohe (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.603) 444.
Onwudinjo v. Diniobi (2006) NWLR (Pt.961) 318.
Sechegba v. Penawou (1999) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.618) 354.
UBN v. Ishola (2001) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt.735) 47.
{Counsel}
Abdulhamid Mohammed Esq. for the Appellants.
Yahaya Mahmood Esq. for 1 st Respondent.