IBRAHIM V. SHAGARI & ANOR

• Pages: 431-456

431



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1983] N.S.C.C.

For the above reasons and the reasons so ably set out in the judgment of my

learned brother, Aniagolu, J.S.C.

I

hereby dismiss the appeal but vary the dam-

ages awarded against the appellant by reducing it to

N1000.00.

I entirely endorse

all the orders made by my learned brother. I also endorse the order as to costs

in this appeal.

ESO, J.S.C.: I

had the advantage of a preview of the judgment which has just

been read by my learned brother Aniagolu J.S.C. As I think the judgment has fully

covered the grounds I will also dismiss the appeal for the reasons given in the

aforesaid judcment.

I also abide by the order as to costs contained in the judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

IBRAHIM V. SHAGARI & ANOR.

ALHAJI WAZIRI IBRAHIM



APPELLANT



20

V

ALHAJI SHEHU SHAGARI AND ANOR.



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 94/1983

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

SOWEMIMO,



J.S.C.



25

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.



30

29th September, 1983

Election Petitions - Parties - Joinder of FEDECO and Inspector-General of Police

as Co-respondents - Nullification of Election for non- compliance with Part II

of Electoral Act, 1982 - Need to establish substantial non-compliance affecting



35

result of election - Alterations made in election results from various States -

"Return" (of election) in S.164(1) Electoral Act, 1982 - Distinguished from

results from which compiled - Appeal on facts - Concurrent findings of

Election Tribunal and Federal Court of Appeal - Absence of any special

circumstances warranting interference by Supreme Court - Appeal dismissed.



40

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the Supreme Court will disturb two concurrent findings of fact in the

absence of any special circumstances or new issue being raised to warrant

such a disturbance.



45

2.

What is the meaning of 'return' as contemplated within the intendment of section

164(1) of the Electoral Act, 1982?

FACTS:

The appellant brought an election petition under the Electoral Act, 1982, against

the respondents, challenging the return of the 1st respondent in the Presidential



50

Election held on 6th August, 1983 and seeking the nullification of the said return

and thus, the election of the 1st respondent.

5

10

15

IBRAHIM V. SHAGARI & ANOR.



432

The appellant averred that there had been various election malpractices con-

trary to section 122(1) (b) of the Electoral Act, 1982. He contended that the return

which dealt with results from Gongola State had been enhanced. He called around

16 witnesses, including FEDECO Chairman, who testified that things were normal

5



and that the

1st

respondent was duly elected. This went against the appellant's

case. The High Court therefore dismissed the appellant's case.

The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the decision of

the High Court.

The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court on facts already estab-

10



lished in the lower Courts.

HELD:

1. The word "return" means the declaration of the result of the election in

accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Electoral Act and includes

a certificate of return in Form EC.8 in the Schedule of the Electoral Act.

15



2. That the appellant was faced with two concurrent findings of fact against him

and the Supreme Court was loath to disturb two concurrent findings of fact

against the appellant. No new issue was raised on behalf of the appellant to

warrant such disturbance, and the appeal was clearly unmeritorious.

20

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT.

1.

Lamai v. Chief Orbih

(1980) 5 - 7 S.C. 28.

2.

Mogo Chinwendu v. Mbamali

(1980) 3 - 4 S.C. 31.

3.

Okunola v. Ogundiran

(1961) All N.L.R. 394.

4.

Swem v. Benjamin Ako Dzungwe & Co.

(1966) 1 N.M.L.R. 297.

25



5.

0. Akinfosile v. J.A. Ijose

(1960) 5 F.S.C. 192.

6.

Bala Kaffi v. Isa

(1965) N.N.L.R. 7.

7.

Enang v. Adu

(1981) 11 - 12 S.C. 25 at pp. 41, 42.

8.

Ukpe lbodo & Ors. v. Enarofia & Ors.

(1980) 5 - 7 S.C. 42, 55.

9.

Obafemi Awolowo v. Shehu Shagari

(1979) 6 - 9 S.C. 51, at p.68 and 110-

30



114.

10.Aiyedun T. Jules v. Raimi Ajani

(1980) 5 - 7 S.C. 96 at 115 - 116.

11.Kofi v. Kofi

1 W.A.C.A. 284.

Mr. F. Akinrinsola

(with him

Dr.

T.

Abayomi and Mr. J. 0. Ogunbode)

for the

35 Appellant.

Dr. M. Odje SAN

(with him

Mr. E. 0. Ometan, T. Ekukinam (Mrs) and Mr. I

Abubakar)

for the 1st Respondent.

Chief R. 0. A. Akinjide SAN, Attorney-General of the Federation

(with him

Mr. F.

Nwadialo, Assistant Director of Litigation, Federal)

for the 2nd Respondent.

40

SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

(Presiding): The petitioner/appellant is dissatisfied with

the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal which confirmed the judgment of the

Federal High Court and thereby dismissing his own appeal.

The petitioner in his petition set out various grounds of malpractices and cor-

45



ruption in the conduct of the presidential election. He also complained of alter-

ations, amendments and obliterations made in at least 15 States' election results.

Unfortunately, the evidence he called in support, especially that of the 2nd, 15th

and 16th witnesses disproved all these allegations. Their evidence was believed

by the trial court and confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal. Of the other wit-

50



nesses called by the petitioner, they were regarded as unreliable and therefore

disbelieved by the trial court and again confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Faced with these concurrent findings, the learned counsel for the appellant was

unable to urge any ground, legal or otherwise, why

this Court should

disturb the

concurrent findings of fact.