The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Appeal Court dismisses ex-Ondo council chiefs’ suit

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital, yesterday dismissed an appeal filed by the elected 18 local government chairmen.

    They served under the former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) administration.

    The appeal was heard by a three-man panel of Justices: M. A. Danjuma, R. M. Abdullahi and P. A. Mahmoud.

    Justice Danjuma, who read the lead judgment, upheld the part of the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, filed by Charles Titiloye, lawyer to the sixth to eighth respondents: the state’s Attorney General and Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission (ODIEC).

    Titiloye argued that the former local government chairmen and councillors lacked the locus standi to appear at the Court of Appeal over counsel representation before the trial court.

    The lawyer averred that the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) is different from the party that sponsored the appellants for the local government election.

    The dissolved PDP local government chiefs had appealed the dissolution of their councils by the Ondo State High Court as an interested party on the ground that the lawyer who filed the action on behalf of the PRP at the lower court did not receive the blessings of the party at the national level.

    The Ondo State High Court, sitting in Akure, the state capital, dissolved the 18 local government areas in the state in 2017, following a suit filed by the PRP that the party was unlawfully excluded from participating in the local government election in the state.

    The Court of Appeal held that parts of the grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal of the dissolved local government chiefs were incompetent.

    It struck them out along with issues formulated by the lead appellants’ counsel, Chief Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), on counsel representation for the PRP.

    It also ruled that the election that brought the PDP local government chairmen and councillors into office was an act of illegality and that no enforceable right could be based on the poll.

    According to the court, the election was conducted in flagrant disregard to the Federal High Court orders that the PRP was a registered political party entitled to nominate candidates for the election.

    The Appeal Court also held that the case before the lower court was a pre-election matter and the amendment of reliefs granted by the trial court to include consequential reliefs.

    The appellate court said this allowed it to dissolve the local governments and invalidate the election conducted in contravention of orders of court and that the pending case in court was in order and valid.

    It rejected the contention of Adedipe that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the case, in view of the fact that it is not an election petition tribunal recognised by the constitution.

    In resolving the issue in favour of the respondent’s counsel, Titiloye, the court noted that the cause of action in the matter involved sponsorship and nomination of candidates for election.

    It said it is a pre-election matter within the jurisdiction of Ondo State High Court and not an election petition tribunal.

    The court had ruled on the preliminary objections filed by Femi Emodamori, counsel to one of PRP’s candidates on failure of the appellants to attach a lawyer’s seal to the appellants’ notice of appeal and filing of the notice of appeal before the High Court instead of the Court of Appeal.

    The court dismissed both objections as lacking in merit.

    It also dismissed similar objections filed by Sola Oke challenging on behalf of the appellants the respondents’ brief filed by Titiloye.

    The Appeal Court resolved all issues in favour of the respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the former Peoples democratic Party’s (PDP’s) local government chairmen and their councillors, thereby affirming the 2017 decision of the Ondo State High Court, Akure, dissolving the 18 local governments in the state.

  • Appeal court dismisses ex-Ondo council Chiefs’ suit

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, the Ondo state capital on Wednesday dismissed the Appeal filed by elected 18 Local Government Chairmen in Ondo State.

    The appeal was heard by a three-man panel of Justices of the Appeal Court, Akure, including Justices M. A Danjuma, R M. Abdullahi and P. A. Mahmoud as members.

    Justice Danjuma in his lead judgment upheld the part of the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of Court of Appeal filed by Charles Titiloye who is the counsel appearing for the 6th to 8th Respondents which are the Attorney General of Ondo State and Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission, (ODIEC).

    Titiloye had argued that the former local Government chairmen and councillors lacked the locus standi to appear at the Court of Appeal on the issue of counsel representation before the trial Court in respect of another political party-the Peoples Redemption Party(PRP) which is different from the party that sponsored the appellants for the local government election.

    The dissolved PDP local government council chiefs had appeal the dissolution of local Govt council by Ondo state High Court as interested party on the ground that the counsel who filed the action on behalf of PRP at the lower Court did not receive the blessings of the PRP at the national level.

    It would be recalled that the Ondo State High Court, sitting in Akure dissolved the 18 Local Government Council of Ondo State in 2017 based on a suit filed by PRP that the party was unlawfully excluded from participating in the local government election in the State.

    The Court of appeal held that parts of the grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal of the dissolved local government boss was incompetent and struck them out along with issues formulated by the lead appellants Counsel, Chief Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN)relating to counsel representation for PRP.

    It ruled that the election that brought the PDP local Government bosses and councillors into office was an act of illegality and no enforceable right can be based on the said election.

    According to the court, the election was conducted in flagrant disregard of the Federal High Court orders that PRP was a registered political party entitled to nominate candidates for the said election.

    The Appeal Court further pointed out that the case before the lower Court was a pre- election matter and the amendment of reliefs granted by the trial Court to include consequential reliefs which allowed it to dissolve the local government Council and invalidate the election conducted in contravention of orders of Court and pending case in Court was in order and valid.

    It rejected the contention of Adedipe that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the case in view of the fact that it is not an election petition tribunal recognised by the constitution.

    In resolving the issue in favour of Respondent’s Counsel, Titiloye, the Court noted that the cause of action in the case involved sponsorship and nomination of candidates for election, saying it is, therefore, a pre- election matter within the jurisdiction of Ondo state High Court and not election petition tribunal.

    It had earlier ruled on the preliminary objections filed by Femi Emodamori, counsel to one of PRP candidate on failure of the appellants to attach lawyers seal to the appellant’s notice of appeal and filing of the notice of appeal before the High Court instead of the Court of appeal.

    The court, therefore, dismissed both objections as lacking in merit.

    It also dismissed similar objections filed by Sola Oke challenging on behalf of the appellants the respondents brief filed by Titiloye.

    The Appeal Court resolved all issues in favour of the respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the former PDP local council chairmen and their councillors thereby affirming the 2017 decision of the Ondo State High Court, Akure dissolving the 18 Local Government Councils in the state.

  • Appeal Court to hear CJN’s appeal Thursday

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday fixed Thursday for hearing in the appeal filed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, against his planned trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    A three-man panel of the Appellate Court, led by Justice Abdu Aboki, after hearing preliminary submissions from lawyer to the CJN, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) and Emmanuel Omonuwa, Director Civil Litigation, Federal Ministry of Justice (for the respondent – the Federal Republic of Nigeria), adjourned to Thursday.

    The court adjourned principally for the hearing of a motion on notice, filed by the CJN, for an injunction restraining the CCT from conducting further proceedings in respect of the charge against him pending the determination of the appeal.

    The CJN’s appeal, which has the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the sold respondent, is challenging the order made by the CCT on January 14, this year, for the hearing of two pending applications.

    One of the applications filed by the prosecution is seeking to compel the CJN to vacate office pending the conclusion of his trial. The other application, which the CCT planned to hear today, is filed by the CJN. It is challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    When the appeal was mentioned yesterday afternoon, Awomolo identified the various sets of documents filed on January 18, this year, by the appellant, including a motion ex-parte, motion on notice for injunction and a notice of appeal.

    Awomolo, who led a number of senior lawyers, including Sebatine Hon (SAN) and Mahmoud Magaji (SAN) for the appellant, said the respondent was served on January 18.

    He said since the respondent was represented in court, the judges could do away with the hearing of the motion ex-parte and proceed to hear the motion on notice.

    Responding, Omonuwa sought a short adjournment to enable him respond to the motion on notice. He said he needed three days to file a counter affidavit.

    When asked to respond, Awomolo said it was within the right of the respondent to be allowed to respond to a motion served on him.

    Awomolo said he was not objecting to Omonuwa’s request for adjournment.

    He, however, prayed the court to order parties to maintain status quo and refrain from taken steps, in respect of the charge before the CCT, pending the next date, a request Omonuwa objected to.

    Omonuwa said there were already three subsisting restraining orders made by three High Court, restraining the CCT from proceeding with the hearing of the charge against the CJN.

    He said: “When I was going through the processes served on us, I noticed that three courts have granted orders restraining proceedings before the CCT.

    “A Federal High Court in Abuja made a restraining order on January 14; the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Abuja made similar order the same day. And on January 15, a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory made similar order.

    “All the three orders are subsisting. None has been set aside. In view of these three pending orders, there may not be need for additional order by this court,” Omonuwa said.

    Ruling, Justice Aboki noted that the appellant’s application before the court was a motion on notice, seeking stay of further proceedings in the charge before CCT pending the determination of the appeal.

    He said “no form of order shall be made”, and adjourned the hearing of the motion on notice to January 24.

    Meanwhile, proceedings are expected to resume today before the CCT in respect of the non-assets disclosure charge filed against the CJN by the Federal Government through the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    Chairman of the tribunal, Danladi Umar had, on January 14, this year, adjourned to January 22 for the hearing of pending motions.

    On Monday, the CJN was seen going about his normal court duties unruffled when The Nation visited the Supreme Court.

    Justice Onnoghen, who led a five-man panel of the apex court, conducted proceedings in many cases from 9am when the court sat, up until 1.30pm when the court rose for the reconstitution of its panel.

    When the court later resumed around 2pm, the CJN was no longer part of the panel. The new panel was head by Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammed.

    One of the cases heard by the panel led by the CJN was an interlocutory appeal filed by former Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives Emeka Ihedioha.

    Also yesterday, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in Abuja restated its earlier order restraining the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and some others from forcing the CJN to vacate office in view of the allegation of non-disclosure of assets made against him.

    Also to be affected by the order are other defendants in a suit by Peter Abang. They are: The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Senate President.

    Read also: Babalola seeks national examination for final year varsity students

    Justice Sanusi Kado had, in an ex-parte ruling on January 14, this year, made similar order and equally halted the scheduled trial of the CJN before the CCT on charges of non-declaration of assets.

    The judge restrained the defendants in the suit from attempting to force the CJN out of office pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction.

    Justice Kado said the orders were necessary to avert a threat and constitutional breaches regarding the position of the CJN as the number one judicial officer of the country.

    When the case was called yesterday, plaintiff’s lawyer, James Igwe (SAN), told the court that some of the defendants have been served, including the CCT Chairman, who was said to have directed his Secretary to accept service on his behalf.

    Igwe however applied for the court’s permission to serve the CCT Chairman through substituted means, which the judge granted.

    The judge reminded parties that the orders made on January 14 still subsist and adjourned to January 30 for report of service.

  • Appeal Court strikes out APC’s appeal against judgment nullifying its congresses

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt yesterday struck out an appeal filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging the ruling of the Justice Chiwendu Nworgu of the Rivers State High Court which annulled its wards, local governments and state congresses.

    The Court of Appeal had on the 12th of December, 2018, struck out the same appeal against the State High Court decision for filing out of the stipulated time in the constitution.

    However, the party on the Tuesday, 15th January, re-approached court of appeal challenging the ruling of the same court, stressing that the lower court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter on the first instance.

    But, the visiting Appeal Court panel constituted to handle the matter, struck it out, stressing that it was a pre-election matter.

    Delivering the judgement on behalf of the panel, at about 7:00pm yesterday, Justice C.N. Uwa noted that the matter which the lower court handled was a pre-election and ought to have been appealed and disposed off within 60 days after the judgement of the lower court.

    Uwa noted that its hands were tied to go into the substantive case.

    Uwa said: “This is a pre-election matter. It has earlier been held by this same court in an appeal of the substantive matter: This court cannot sit  against itself on the same matter.

    “The appeal is fundamentally defective. The court cannot go into the matter, as doing so will amount to an effort in futility.

    “It is unnecessary to continue on an appeal no matter the merit, which this court has held as status bound. It would be an effort in futility to continue. This appeal is hereby struck out”

    The spokesman of the APC in the state, Chris Finebone, explained that the judgement has nothing to do with the latest appeal filed by the party against the January 7 judgement of Justice James Kolawole Omotoso of the Port Harcourt  Federal High Court.

    Finebone said the apeal and the stay of execution filed against the latest judgment was yet to be heard.

    He said:  “Be informed that our appeal of the federal high court judgment and our accompanying Stay of Execution application are yet to be heard. Today’s matter was same matter that was earlier dismissed by the Appeal Court on account of being time barred. Necessary rectifications were done and the appeal refilled but unfortunately struck out today.

    Read also: How Supreme Court’s verdict affirmed CCT’s powers

    However, all other matters/appeals including the Stay of Execution of the federal high court judgment will still come up for hearing.

    “This is to correct the erroneous impression that all windows for APC to present candidates for the 2019 elections have been shut. Far from it! All party faithful should remain calm and prayerful as ultimate

  • Appeal court rules on disputed Computer Village building May 2

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos on Monday fixed May 2 to hear an appeal challenging a default judgment which awarded a property at Computer Village, Ikeja, to three people as original owners of the land.

    The three Justices of the appellate court, led by Justice A. U. Ogakwu, also ordered all parties to maintain the status quo on the 53-year-old property until the adjourned hearing date.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the default judgment was delivered by an Igbosere High Court, Lagos in 2017

    The applicant, Mrs Risikatu Gbose-Adebule, had in April 2018, filed a motion on notice before the lower court, challenging the default judgment.

    She claimed that the default judgment was delivered in her absence and without participating in the proceedings leading to the judgment and possession of the property situated at No. 18, Obafemi Awolowo Way, Computer Village, Ikeja.

    Adebule is seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents – Kolawole Ajayi Moses, Chief Layiwola Moses and Olorunnimbe Moses – their agents, privies or servants from taking any further action on the property, pending the determination of her appeal.

    She wants the property preserved so that the respondents would not destroy it while the appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeal.

    Counsel to the applicant – Mr Chijioke Ubani – had filed the motion on notice on behalf of Adebule family.

    At the resumed hearing on Monday, Ubani told the court that he filed two applications and an injuction for his appeal.

    He, however, prayed the court to make an order preserving the subject matter of the suit until the substantive injunction is heard.

    Counsel to the respondent, Jadidat Yusuf, did not oppose the application.

    The Appeal Court granted the application that the status quo should be maintained and adjourned hearing until May 2

    NAN reports that the Dec. 12, 2017 default judgment by an Igbosere High Court gave possession of the building on Plot 18 to the respondents out of the other properties on Plots 16, 20 and 22, property of the late Assistant Police Commissioner, Mr Baden Olufemi Adebule.

    Read Also: TCN gets approval to evacuate power from Mambila

    Adebule averred that the four houses are on the same title deed and that the inherited properties are shared among the deceased children.

    She also faulted the claims of the respondents that they own Plot 18 out of the four adjoining houses.

    Before the ruling by Justice O.O. Femi-Adeniyi of the lower court on Dec. 12, 2017, the respondents had allegedly issued a writ of summons on May 2, 2013 and also filed an ex-parte application for substituted service on the applicant.

    The sheriff had deposed that the applicant did not reside at the address for service.

    The processes filed were allegedly served by pasting them at the address without the knowledge of the applicant, who resides in Badagry, Lagos State.

    The late Adebule had been granted a 99-year lease of the land on Sept. 18, 1965 over approximately 2, 536.70 sq yards by the then Western Nigeria Government.

    The children and the widow of the deceased had been granted a Letter of Administration of his estate on Nov. 20, 1985 (Exhibit RA9).

    The building in dispute had been standing since the 1960s without challenge from the respondents/claimants.

    The applicant’s father had been in exclusive and undisturbed possession until Aug. 11, 2017.

    The applicant’s tenants had been on the premises since 2013 with more than 20 shops and offices.

    The applicant also claimed that no court summons had been brought to her attention until Aug. 11, 2017 when court officials and the police came to effect execution on the premises.

  • Appeal Court increases cash award to lawyer

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri has awarded N30 million against Julius Berger Nigeria Plc and the Police for violating the fundamental rights of a Lagos lawyer Mr Emeka Ozoani, who was illegally declared a ‘’category A wanted person’’.

    Justices Rita Pemu, Raphael Agbo and Ayobode Lokulo-Sodipe made the award in their judgment in an appeal filed by Julius Berger and the Police and a cross appeal  by Ozoani against the judgment of an Owerri High Court.

    The panel raised the N25 million award by the high court against Julius Berger and the Police to N30 million.

    It upheld the judgment delivered by Justice Nonyerem Okoronkwo the case.

    The high court on February 2013 held that the police  grossly violated the fundamental rights of  Ozoani, for declaring  him ‘’category A wanted person’’w in a national daily of September 4, 2012.

    The lawyer sued the Inspector-General of Police, the Assistant Inspector-General of Police Zone 9 Umuahia, ASP P. S. Njoku, Prosecuting officer in charge of OW/373c/2011 Zone 9,Umuahia, Peter Ogunyanwo, DCP Zone 9 Umuahia and Julius Berger.

    In the suit,  Ozoani asked the court for: “enforcement of his fundamental right, an order to set aside the declaration of the applicant as a ‘category “A” wanted person, an order of perpetual injunction restraining and directing the respondents to jointly and severally tender apology to the applicant and N50 billion damages for the unlawful violation of his fundamental right”.

    The police arrested, manhandled and assaulted the lawyer in the court premises over allegation of forgery in the case between Mrs Philoma Ugo V. Julius Berger (Nigeria) Plc where he appeared as a counsel to Ugo.

    In its judgment, the court held that police, in the administration of justice, are to prevent crime, investigate  crime and enforce laws and regulation but went “outside the scope of their duties by falsely and wrongly arresting person, battering persons etc, then they become culpable of criminal acts”.

    On appeal, the higher court held: “Where there is suspicion, it must be reasonable. It is the duty of Police to investigate crimes, but not to be used as tool of oppression by unscrupulous litigants in pursuit of their mischief.

    “In a situation, such as in this case, where the second respondents is suspected of forgery, it is not for the first set of respondents (Police officers) by the instigation of the appellant (Julius Berger) to proceed to humiliate and degrade him the way they did without proof of crime. Even if he has found wanting it is not for respondents to manhandled him the way they did in the court premises.”

    The Court of Appeal held that the lower court did not in its appraisal, seek to relegate any matter but only referred to it in appraising the facts.

    ”In this case, what are the facts and circumstances? I have given earlier in all that sundry places but suffice it to say that the case involving Julius Berger Nigeria Plc and Mrs. Philomena Ugo wherein applicant was counsel for Mrs Philomena Ugo was the subject of How/581/2007 in which judgment was delivered on 26/9/2009 and that the judgment is the subject of an appeal at the Court of Appeal holden at Owerri in CA/OW/146/2010 Julius Berger Nigeria. Plc v. Mrs Philomena Ugo where the appellant has also applied to adduced fresh evidence which they did not lead at high court.

    “Does this amount to the court below raising the issue of Estoppels suo motu? The answer is an emphatic no. The lives and personal dignity of a being is sacrosanct. The law and indeed public policy would frown at on attempt by big multinational companies who think that they are larger than life, to destroy the lives, hopes and aspiration of person, with intention of using technicalities to cover their trial.

    “The courts would lift the veil to see clearly what obtained and do justice accordingly just as the court below did in this case. The issue is resolved in favour of second respondent and against the appellant.

    “The totality is that the appeal is devoid of merit and same is dismissed in it’s a entirety with N100,000 cost in favour of second respondent.”

    On Ozoani’s claim that the N25 million damage was meagre, the court held that “when a person is subjected to being treated like trash, his dignity and self-esteem is done away with. In a situation where this obtains, whoever is responsible for that infraction of the fundamental right of being must be ready to face the music by way of compensation in exemplary damages. The life of a man is priceless’’.

    Justice Rita Pemu, while delivering the lead judgment, said: “It is no gainsaying that the economic downturn is endemic and keeps going down. The fifth respondents/cross appellant is a legal practitioner. A respected one at that! In the course of carrying out his legitimate duties, he is pounced on with levity. His body and soul are bruised and his emotions toyed with.

    “This is despicable. It is against public policy for those who are supposed to enforce the rule of law to collude with big multinational companies to oppress the people. The time has come in this country to cry aloud against these nefarious activities.

    “The average man on the street should be able to walk the streets without fear of being molested by powers that be. The issue of award of damages is discretionary and I am tempted not to interfere with the  damages awarded the fifth respondent /cross appellant.

    ‘’But with respect, N25 million is far away from the amount claimed by the respondent/cross appellant. I would award the sum of N30 million because of dire economic situation right now. It was bad enough in the year 2013 when judgment was delivered in this matter. It is even worse today economically.

    “In the circumstances, I hereby award N30 million to the respondent instead of N25 million awarded by the court below. The cross appeal succeeds in part and I so order. N100,000 cost in favour of 5th respondent/cross appellant.”

  • Appeal Court sacks Kashamu, others as Ogun PDP candidates

    •Senator: nothing has changed

    The Ibadan Division of the Appeal Court yesterday set aside the court judgment that threw up Senator Buruji Kashamu and other candidates in the Adebayo Dayo-led faction of the Ogun State Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    With the judgment, it is expected that Oladipupo Adebutu and others, who won the party’s primaries, will fly its flag as the authentic candidates in next year’s general elections.

    The three-man appeal panel set aside the judgment of a Federal High Court in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, which threw up Kashamu and his factional members as the authentic PDP candidates.

    It ordered the reassignment of the case to another judge on the grounds that Justice Abubakar Shittu erred in his judgment.

    Justice Shittu had ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise candidates of the Dayo-led faction, having delivered verdict in the faction’s favour.

    But the national leadership of the party, which comprised the respondents, were reportedly not served the court processes.

    The appeal panel, headed by Justice A. B. Bada, resolved the four issues raised for determination in the appeal in favour of the PDP.

    It said the appellants were not properly served in the case at the lower court, which breached their rights to fair hearing.

    Both Justices Bada and N. Okoronkwo agreed with Justice H. S. Samani, who read the lead judgment.

    The PDP had dragged the Adedayo Bayo-led faction to the appellate court, challenging the lower court judgment, which threw up its candidates.

    It prayed the court to set aside the judgment on the grounds that they were not properly served before judgment was delivered and that the lower court judge was wrong in his verdict.

    The appeal panel held that there was no proper service on the appellant because an officer of the party, not lower than the rank of Secretary, should have been served for it to be deemed properly served; neither the party’s National Chairman nor Secretary was served before the judgment was given.

    Stressing that an appeal is an invitation to find out if the decision of the lower court was right, the panel held that all the grounds of appeal were valid.

    On the issue of service of court processes, the panel held that proper service is a fundamental requirement in the judicial process.

    “It is an exact thing that must be undertaken with all exactness in the judicial process… It must be clear and unequivocal. The bailiff must prove that he has found the exact person the service is meant for, who, in this case, the court stipulated must not be lower in rank than Secretary of the party,” Justice Samani held.

    The judge also held that the bailiff’s report did not show that the appellants tried to evade service, adding that his report cast serious doubts on proper service expected.

    He said: “From the above analysis, I have no doubt that the process was not properly served. It is settled in law that where there is no service or proper service, the claimed service is a nullity and any decision based on that is a nullity. This puts the appellants in a situation where their fundamental human right for fair hearing is breached.”

    He declared the lower court’s decision a nullity.

    The panel ordered the matter to be reassigned to another judge in the Abeokuta Division of the Federal High Court.

    Agreeing, the two other justices posited that the main point in the appeal was the service of court process, which they said was not properly served on the appellants.

    PDP’s counsel, led by Matthias Ikyav, the respondents’ counsel, led by Ifeoma Esom and INEC’s lawyer, D. A. Akinyele, thanked the justices for the verdict.

    But the Kashamu/Abati Campaign Organisation yesterday said it would appeal the Court of Appeal verdict.

    In a statement by Mr Austin Oniyokor, the organisation said its lawyers would go to the Supreme Court.

    The statement added that the judgment did not make a pronouncement on the candidature of any of those in the two factions of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State.

    It assured its teeming supporters not to fret, adding that nothing had changed.

    The statement reads: “We have received the news of the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, that set aside the orders of the Federal High Court, Abeokuta…

    “The extant judgment of the Court of Appeal in this appeal does not finally determine the matter. That is why it ordered that the case file should be returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge who will hear and determine the originating summons.

    “Flowing from the above, we wish to reassure our teeming supporters, party leaders and elders, friends and associates that nothing has changed. The nomination of Senator Buruji Kashamu and all other candidates of the Ogun State PDP based on the valid and subsisting judgments mentioned above has not changed.

    “Finally, our lawyers have taken steps to immediately appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.”

     

  • Breaking: Appeal Court sacks Kashamu, others as Ogun PDP candidates

    The Ibadan Division of the Appeal Court, on Tuesday December 18, 2018 sacked Senator Buruji Kashamu and other ‘candidates’ in the Adebayo Dayo-led faction of the Ogun State PDP.

    The three-man appeal panel set aside the judgment of a Federal High Court in Abeokuta which threw up Kashamu and his factional members as the authentic PDP candidates.

    The panel headed by Justice A. B. Bada, resolved the four issues raised for determination in the appeal in favour of the PDP, saying the appellants were not properly served in the case at the lower court which breached their rights to fair hearing.

    Both Justices Bada and N. Okoronkwo agreed with Justice H. S. Samani who read the lead judgment.

    Read Also: We will ensure even development of Ogun, says Kashamu

    The judgment is expected to have removed the cloud over governorship candidates of Hon. Oladipupo Adebutu and the National Assembly and Ogun State House of Assembly candidates for the 2019 election.

    The PDP had dragged the Adedayo Bayo-led faction to the appellate court to challenge the lower court judgment which threw up its candidates.

    They prayed the court to set aside the judgment on the grounds that they were not properly served before judgment was delivered and that the lower court judge was wrong in his judgment.

  • Ogun PDP governorship crisis: Appeal Court delivers verdict today in Adebutu/Kashamu suit

    Senator Buruji Kashamu and Oladipupo Adebutu will today know their fate over their claims to the governorship ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State.

    The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, will deliver its judgment on the matter today.

    Justice Abubakar Shittu of a Federal High Court in Ogun State, in October, directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to accept a list of candidates from the Adebayo Dayo-led faction of the party.

    The faction is loyal to Kashamu, the senator representing Ogun East District and the governorship candidate of the faction.

    The judgment came after Adebutu had been named the governorship candidate of the party.

    Rather than surrender, the PDP, through its counsel, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), approached the appellate court in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital.

    The party sought an order to set aside the judgment on the ground of non-service on the PDP, the process upon which the orders were based, lack of fair hearing, Supreme Court judgment on PDP leadership tussle, among others.

    The situation leaves the two politicians claiming to be the authentic candidates of the party while awaiting the decision of the appellate court.

    At the hearing of the appeal yesterday before a three-man panel, Etiaba argued that the PDP was not served the processes upon which the orders were predicated and was consequently not given fair hearing in the matter brought before Justice Shittu by the Dayo-led faction.

    On the leadership tussle in the party, Etiaba argued that the Supreme Court had laid the issue to rest.

    The issue of bias against Justice Shittu included in the brief of appeal by the appellants’ counsel as one of the grounds of appeal, resulting from the lack of fair hearing ground, was later withdrawn by Etiaba on the advice of one of the three judges who heard the appeal.

    Counsel to Dayo, Dr Alex Izinyon (SAN), prayed the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.

    He argued that the court bailiff approached the office of the PDP National Secretary from where he was directed to the Legal Department of the party for service of the court processes.

    Izinyon said the bailiff, as stated in his affidavit filed before the court, met some lawyers at the Legal Department who refused to accept service of the processes, claiming there was a holiday.

    But the PDP lawyer counter-argued that the law is that an officer of the party not lower than a Secretary must be served such processes.

    Izinyon said the argument should have been filed in an affidavit to controvert the bailiff’s claim.

    After listening to both counsel, the presiding judge, Justice J. A. Bada, asked the parties to address the court on whether the matter was a pre-election case or not, based on the provisions of Section 285, Subsection 14 a-c of the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution.

    Etiaba said it was not a pre-election matter as it did not fall within the category of cases classified as such.

    But Izinyon said it was a pre-election matter and so remained statute-barred.

    The lawyer urged the court to strike out certain paragraphs in the appellants’ brief.

    Justice Bada fixed 3 p.m. today for judgment on the matter.

  • Don’t rule on a matter before Appeal Court, activists beg Judge

    Following alleged decision of an Ilorin, Kwara State High Court Judge to give judgement in a matter already being entertained by the Appeal Court, pro-democracy activists in the state have urged the Judge to exercise retrain so as not to heighten the already charged political atmosphere in the state. The said suit was instituted against the current leadership of the APC by its former executives led by Mr. Ishola Balogun-Fulani seeking to be reinstated by the national leadership of the party.

    Making the appeal in Ilorin on Saturday, the Kwara Coalition, a pro-democracy group in the state, said it is important for the judiciary to remain an unbiased arbiter as the 2019 general election draws nearer. The co-ordinator of the coalition, Ahmed Baba-Rahman, called on the concerned judge to follow the rules guiding his profession to the letter in handling the matter.

    “The judiciary must not be seen to be providing succour for some suspended members of Kwara APC. So the judge who is insisting on delivering a judgement next week despite subsisting appeals before the Court of Appeal, should kindly desist from such action which is capable of heating up the political atmosphere in the state. Ours is an appeal for caution following his insistence on Friday that APC counsels must enter into the substantive suit because he will deliver a judgement next week.

    “W recalled that the judge’s earlier decision to grante an amendment to the original prayers of Mr. Balogun-Fulani without outlining what the new prayers were seeking, is still being contested by the defendants, who have expressed worries over the actions of the judge, especially when he threw away the stay of execution filed before him and ignored all the pending suits before the Court of Appeal, a higher court.

    “We have followed this matter keenly since its commencement in August, and we are worried that it may be headed to a predetermined destination. We appeal to the judge to cross check his actions and inaction in the interest of peace just as we call on all persons of good conscience to defend justice and abort the travesty going on in Kwara State judiciary,” Baba-Rahman said.