The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Keystone Bank’s ex-MD must face trial, says Appeal Court

    Keystone Bank’s ex-MD must face trial, says Appeal Court

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, yesterday held that former Keystone Bank (former Bank PHB) Managing Director Francis Atuche must face trial for alleged N25.7b theft.

    The court upheld the appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against a Lagos High Court verdict which dismissed the charge.

    Last June 22, Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the prosecution’s case lacked merit.

    He discharged Atuche of the theft charge along with his wife, Elizabeth, and a former Chief Financial Officer of the bank, Ugo Anyanwu.

    But the appellate court in its judgement delivered by Justice Gana Mshelia, set aside the judgment.

    She ordered the Chief Judge of Lagos State to reasign the case to another judge or retrial.

    Justice Msheila in her lead judgement held that the trial judge erred in law by holding that it was bound on the principle of stare decisis by the decision in Okey Nwosu Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria and Akingbola Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    The appellate court further held that  the lower court erred when it struck out counts 1 to 24 and 26 in the amended information against the third defendant.

    Justice Lawal-Akapo had held “I find no merit in the prosecution’s application, it is hereby dismissed. The defendants application dated November 27, 2013 succeeds and I hereby make the following orders:

    “The criminal charge in this suit is hereby struck out and the accused persons namely; Francis Atuche, Elizabeth Atuche and Ugo Anyawu are discharged. The complainant’s notice of plenary objection dated December 3, 2013 is hereby dismissed”, Justice Lawal-Akapo had declared.

    But the EFCC in its appeal filed by its counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), is now seeking an order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of Justice Lawal-Akapo striking out the counts contained in the amended information dated June 1, 2011.

    Other reliefs sought by the EFCC include an order allowing its appeal and an order directing a continuation of trial and defence before Justice Lateefa Okunnu of the High Court of Lagos State sitting in Ikeja.

    The EFCC, which based its appeal on five grounds, told the court that the learned trial judge erred in law by proceeding to strike out the entirety of the amended information when by the unambiguous and plain provisions of Section 252(3) of the Constitution, no exclusive criminal jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court (at least to the exclusion of the Lagos High Court) on the matters provided for under Section 251(1).

    The commission contended that it was wrong for the court to strike out counts 1 to 24 and 26 in the amended information against the third defendant when the order of the Court of Appeal against which he claimed the lower court assumed jurisdiction over the charge was in respect of the appeals initiated by the first and second appellants only stressing that the third defendant was not a party to it.

    He said neither the third defendant nor his counsel made any application before the court seeking to have counts 1 to 24 and 26 of the amended information struck out. He said the court, by so doing, has become charitable by granting relief and order not sought for by the third defendant.

    The EFCC submitted that the defendants pleaded separately each of the counts contained in the amended information to the main suit.

    It explained that counts one to 10 dealt with the alleged stealing of money belonging to the bank while count 11 to 27 dealt with the allegation of conversion of the monies to personal use.

    It said the court ignored the provisions of Section 152 and 153 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2011 by striking out all the counts against the defendants.

    The EFCC contended that the trial judge erred in law by holding that it was bound on the principle of stare decisis by the decision in Okey Nwosu Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria and Akingbola Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    It said the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ehindero Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria and Sebastian Adigwe Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria affirmed the non-exclusivity of the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

    The EFCC contended that where there are two or more conflicting decisions of a higher court or the Court of Appeal, the law stipulated that the lower court is at liberty and free to choose which of the decisions to follow and cited the cases of Eze Vs Attorney General Rivers State, Ikweki Vs Ebele and Mohammed Vs MECO Limited to support his claim.

    The commission said the lower court was wrong to hold that it was bound by the decisions of the upper court in the cases of Okey Nwosu and Akingbola and to declare that the cases were similar and applicable to the instant case.

     

  • ‘Appeal Court verdict a victory for Abians’

    A former Special Assistant to Second Republic Vice President Dr Alex Ekwueme, Mr Ben Onyechere, yesterday described the Court of Appeal judgment which validated Abia State Governor Okezie Ikpeazu’s election as a victory for Abians.

    The appellate court set aside the judgment of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court sacking Ikpeazu as the governor, calling it “a rape of democracy”.

    Onyechere, in a statement, said there was a desperate move to remove Ikpeazu, adding that his victory at the polls was no fluke.

    “The governor’s mandate was faultless and his victory overwhelming. In other words, the plot to reverse his mandate was an onslaught against the sensibilities of Abia voters whose right of choice was put to question,” he said.

    He praised the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmoud Mohammed, for building a courageous and clean judiciary that cannot be bought.

    “The judgment of the Appeal Court confirmed further the excellence and decorum which adorns the appellate courts of Nigeria particularly under the present CJN who has speared no effort in sanitising  the judiciary,” Onyechere said.

    According to him, Ikpeazu will not be distracted by those he described as desperate politicians seeking cheap popularity ahead of 2019.

  • Abia: A/Court judgment excites PDP

    Abia: A/Court judgment excites PDP

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is excited by the Appeal Court ruling that affirmed the election of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu’s of Abia state who contested the election on the platform of the PDP.

    The appellate court on Friday had set aside a judgment of a Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Okon Abang ordering Ikpeazu’s removal and his replacement with Dr. Uche Ogah, also of the PDP.

    In a statement on Friday by the spokesman of the party’s Caretaker Committee, Prince Dayo Adeyeye, the PDP described the ruling of the appellate court as triumph of the rule of law and victory for democracy.

    The statement said, “What transpired at the Court of Appeal on Thursday, August 18, 2016  has once again rekindled our trust in the Judiciary as the last hope of the common man.

    “You will recall that the lead Judge of the five-man panel of Judges of the Appeal Court, Justice Morenike Ogunwumiju on Thursday, August 18, 2016 delivered ruling on an appeal brought before it by Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu, Executive Governor of Abia state in respect of his Tax Clearance Certificate.

    “Finally, the Peoples Democratic Party call on all well meaning Nigerians and the National Judicial Council (NJC) in particular, to continue rising up to its responsibility of maintaining an unbiased judiciary that will be neutral on all issues brought before it”.

  • Sylva, APC urge Appeal Court to void Dickson’s election

    Sylva, APC urge Appeal Court to void Dickson’s election

    •Appeal tribunal’s July 26 judgment 

    Former Bayelsa State Governor Timipre Sylva and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), have appealed the July 26 judgment of the state’s Election Petition Tribunal, which upheld the return of Seriake Dickson as winner of the last governorship election.

    In the appeal, filed by their lawyer, Sebastine Hon (SAN), before the Court of Appeal in Abuja on August 14, Sylva faulted the tribunal’s judgment and raised 24 grounds of appeal.

    They argued, among others, that the three-member tribunal, led by Justice Kazeem Alogba, misled itself, misapplied the law and came to a wrong verdict.

    Sylva and APC asked the Court of Appeal to, among others, set aside the judgment and grant his reliefs as contained in his petition or the alternative reliefs, including the cancellation of the poll and ordering a fresh election.

    The former governor and his party argued that the tribunal erred in law when it held that the reasons given by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to cancel the election was within the provision Section 26(1) of the Electoral Act (EA) 2010.

    They argued that Section 26(1) of the Electoral Act has no provision for “cancellation” of election, but “postponement” of election.

    “The phrase, ‘other emergencies’ under Section 26(1) E A, is limited to the action of INEC ‘postponing’ an election and not ‘cancelling one that had already taken place,” they said.

    The appellants, who noted that Sylva’s major complaint was that INEC’s Electoral Officer in the state acted unlawfully by cancelling the result of elections already held in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area on December 6, last year, also said the tribunal was wrong to have upheld INEC’s claim that the election was postponed.

    Sylva and APC also faulted the tribunal for allegedly making contradictory findings.

    The appellants noted that since Form EC8A contained the polling unit results of election in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area, INEC should not have said no valid election was held in the area on December 6.

    They argued that the tribunal’s judges “misdirected themselves in law when they held that the appellant (Sylva) failed to prove and or tender any document showing that election results had been uploaded on the database of INEC before the cancellation of the election and that such failure not only meant abandonment of pleading but withholding of evidence, which, if tendered, would be fatal to the appellants”.

    Sylva and APC also faulted the tribunal, arguing that its judges erred in law when, in their alleged haste to dismiss the complaint on Southern Ijaw Local Government Area, refused to evaluate the appelants’ evidence to prove their case.

    They faulted the tribunal for failing to void Dickson’s election when it found, through credible evidence, that the combined result of election recorded by both candidates was 48,146 less than the over 120,000 total registered voters in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area.

    The appellants argued that the tribunal erred in law when, despite the strong case they made and proved, the tribunal still held that Dickson was validly elected.

    “The trial tribunal erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it failed to make a definite pronouncement on the effect of the cancelled votes being more than the difference between the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and APC.

    “The judges of the lower tribunal erred in law when they failed to give a ruling on the objection that exhibits R23 (A -J) – R33 (A -N) tendered by the first respondent were dumped on the tribunal, yet accorded the presumption of regularity in favour of the exhibits and attached weight to them and relied on exhibits R23AJ – 36(A – I) in its judgment,” the appellants said.

     

  • Appeal Court reserves verdict in Ikpeazu, Ogah case

    Appeal Court reserves verdict in Ikpeazu, Ogah case

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja division yesterday reserved judgments in six appeals filed against two judgments of the Federal High Court, Abuja sacking Governor Victor Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia State.

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja in his June 27 judgment on suits filed by Samson Ogah and Obasi Ekeagbala, voided Ikpeazu’s election because he made false claims in his tax information submitted to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) preparatory to its December 8, 2014 primary.

    The appellate court reserved judgments after the parties made their final submissions and adopted their briefs of argument.

    The appeals included three filed by Ikpeazu marked: CA/A/390/2016, CA/A/ 390D and CA/A/406/2016

    There were two appeals by the PDP marked; CA/A/390A and CA/A/406A and the one marked: CA/A/390B by Friday Nwosu, a PDP governorship aspirant, who came fifth in the primary. His suit against Ikpeazu was dismissed by the Federal High Court in Umuahia for failure to prove the allegation of forgery on which he premised his case.

    Ikpeazu, represented by a team of 37 lawyers including eight Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), led by Chief Wole Olanipekun  faulted Justice Abang’s  judgments. He urged the court to allow his appeals and set aside the judgments.

    In the appeal marked: CA/A/390D/2016, Ikpeazu urged the court to set aside the post-judgement ruling by Justice Abang, in which he held among others that a trial court could still exercise jurisdiction in a case after an appeal against its final judgment had been entered at the Court of Appeal and record of appeal compiled.

    The judge had declined to stay action on the case on being informed by Olanipekun that his client’s appeals against his judgments had been entered, given an appeal number and record of appeal transmitted to the appeal court.

    Justice Abang, in the ruling, held that Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules cited by Olanipekun was only applicable in interlocutory judgments, noting that in the case of a final judgement, there was nothing left to be preserved by asking the trial court to stay action.

    Yesterday, Olanpekun urged the court to make a definite pronouncement on the issue, noting that Justice Abang, by his ruling, has attempted to alter the long held tradition of the court that once  an appeal is entered at a court of higher jurisdiction, the lower court ceases to exercise jurisdiction.

    The two appeals by the PDP were against the judgments of the Federal High Court. Represented by a team of lawyers including Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Joseph Nwobike (SAN) and Paul Ananaba (SAN), the party faulted the trial court’s reasons for voiding Ikpeazu’s election and ordering the issuance of certificate of return to Ogah.

    Ikpeazu, who led the legal team, adopted his client’s briefs of arguments on both appeals and their responses to some of the other appeals. He argued that the conclusion of the trial court was wrong because the possession of tax receipts do not form the basis of qualification or disqualification under Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution.

    Ikpeazu  urged the court to allow the PDP appeals and set aside the judgments of the lower court.

    Adopting Nwosu’s briefs of argument, his lawyer, J. C. Idoko urged the court to set aside the judgement in Ogah’s case because that it was based on abuse of court process. He said Ogah abused court  process when he filed the suit at the trial court when a  similar one had been  filed by his client, with Ogah as a party.

    Idoko urged the court to set aside the judgment and allow his client’s appeal, including making Nwosu the governor of Abia State having disqualified Ikpeazu and Ogah.

    Ogah equally paraded a team of lawyers, which included Alex Iziyon (SAN), Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) and Femi Falana (SAN). Iziyon, who spoke for the team, urged the court to dismiss all the appeals.

    On Ikpeazu’s  appeals, Iziyon argued that justice Abang was right when it held that the governor was not qualified to stand for election having breached the provision of his party’s guidelines.

    He insisted that his client’s case was not based on forgery, but on false information, which Ikpeazu submitted to his party to contest its primary, and which the party included in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Form CF001.

    Iziyon, who urged the court to also dismiss PDP’s appeals, wondered why it was uncomfortable with the lower court’s judgments, having admitted in one of its affidavits that it erroneously included the false tax documents in the Form CF 001.

    He described Nwosu’s appeal as frivolous, noting that the appellant, against who no reliefs were made in the judgments by the lower court, has no reason to query the judgments. He wondered how Nwosu, who came fifth in the primary, would want to be made a governor.

  • Appeal Court fails to hear 19-year-old land case

    Appeal Court fails to hear 19-year-old land case

    The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt is yet to hear a 19-year-old land case involving former Controller of News at the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) Prince Woboroma II.

    Nothing has been done to rectify the issue, it was learnt.

    Woboroma had complained that his N4 billion heritage had been plundered with impunity, claiming that hired assassins were sent after him and his family.

    They fled their Port Harcourt home and have been in hiding for nearly 20 years. Woboroma claimed that his children have no access to education or healthcare.

    The appeal has not been served on the respondents, Woboroma alleged.

    “In view of the demonstrable inability of the Appeal Court to take a decisive action on the matter for two decades, it’s imperative for the Federal Government to quickly take steps to rescue and restore the image of the judiciary by having all permanent structures erected on Woboroma’s land during the pendency of the fake appeal totally demolished. By so doing, justice shall be done and be seen to have been done,” he said.

    Woboroma accused the Court of Appeal justices of complicity in the plundering of his $12 million assets.

    According him, 200 plots of prime land belonging to him has been decimated, with part of it allegedly sold to a senator from Bayelsa.

    Fighting to save his assets from being completely plundered, three gangs of hired assassins went after him, and for nearly 19 years, he and his family have been living in hiding.

    His case got worse when his lawyer allegedly defrauded and threatened him. The height of it was when Woboroma had a close shave with death as his assailants left him for dead with matchete cuts.

    The 19-year-old land case is pending at the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal. It is over 200 plots of prime land located on both sides of the road between Ngbuoba Rumuokwuta and Rumuwike, which Woboroma and his four elder brothers, inherited from their father.

    In 1993, following a disagreement with one of his brothers, Chinyerengozi, a Customary Court ruled that Woboroma and his siblings were entitled to inherit their late father’s land, noting that grandchildren could not jointly share it with their fathers.

    After inspecting one of the land containing 36 plots, the court shared it among the brothers – Chinyerengozi, Woboromazim, Thomas, Igwechi and Prince, all of whom got seven plots each. The remaining one plot was allocated to Chinyerengozi as a matter of privilege.

    Dissatisfied with the Customary Court’s verdict, Chinyerengozi appealed to the High Court, challenging the Customary Court’s verdict. On March 29, 1996, the High Court appeal panel dismissed the case.

    In 1997, Chinyerengozi further appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the case was struck out on November 27, 2012. The appellant, according to Woboroma, did not apply for a relisting of the case within 90 days.

    Three years later, following Chinyerengozi’s death in 2014, the appellant’s children last February applied to re-list the case and their request was granted.

    Woboroma said the case suffered seven adjournments last year without hearing, during which some of the land in dispute was allegedly sold.

    “Questions are being asked everywhere as to why an elite court should keep an incompetent appeal pending for upward of 19 years without hearing,” he said.

  • Appeal Court overrules High Court over Giwa

    Appeal Court overrules High Court over Giwa

    • Says Plaintiffs were wrong in asking the case to be relisted

     

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Jos has dismissed the judgment of the Federal High Court Jos which pronounced Mr. Chris Giwa as the authentic President of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF)

    In a judgement delivered by Hon Justice Joseph Tur at the Appeal Court, Jos on Monday, said the rulling of the federal High Court Jos on April 8 returning Chris Giwa to the Glass house was null and void.

    Tur said that the case had been discontinued and that in the eyes of the law the case remained discontinued and that the plaintiffs were wrong in asking that the case be relisted.

    The Federal High Court Jos had in a ruling on Oct. 23, 2014, granted the request of Giwa nullifying the result of the Warri General Assembly and the subsequent elective congress that brought in the current NFF board led by  Amaju Pinnick into office.

    However, then President  Goodluck Jonathan faced with an imminent threat of FIFA ban had intervened, which led to  the Chris Giwa-led faction of the NFF withdrawing the case.

    But Messrs. Adama Yahaya and Obinna Ogba, acting on behalf of the Giwa-led faction had again approached the court on March 10, 2016 asking it to re-list the matter which they had earlier withdrawn, after  the former president’s intervention claiming that most of the issues that led to the court case had not been resolved.

    On April 8, Justice Musa Kurya, who heard the relisted case, ordered the recognition of Chris Giwa as the President of the NFF.  He also barred anybody from interfering with the duties and functions of the NFF board under the leadership of  Giwa.It was the ruling that the  Pinnick-led board  appealed.

    Justice Joseph Tur said in his judgement, “In ruling that Giwa be recognised as the president of NFF, the court should have taken into consideration the circumstances of the case giving that it struck out and discontinued by the same court on October 30, 2014.

    The presiding justice also faulted the submissions of the counsel to the respondents, Mr. Habila Azard, in which the decision of the court was made based on the undertaking that was taken prior to the judgement of October 30 and stated the process of relisting was not followed.

    The appeal court further faulted the ruling of the Federal High Court made on April 8, 2016 and said it should have considered the circumstances of the case given that it struck out and discontinued by the same court on the October, 30 2014

    Tur, while allowing the appeal of the NFF, set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court made on April 8, 2016 and reinstated the ruling made on  October 30, 2014.He awarded N50,000 cost against the the two parties.

  • Appeal Court reserves judgment in Kogi governorship dispute

    Appeal Court reserves judgment in Kogi governorship dispute

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has reserved judgment in two appeals against the decision of the election tribunal, which upheld the election of Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.

    Appeals were filed by James Faleke of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and former Governor Idris Wada of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The court announced yesterday, after adopting parties’ briefs of argument, that a date for judgment would be communicated to them.

    Yesterday, Faleke’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), urged the court to set aside the decision of the tribunal. He urged the court to void Bello’s election on the grounds that he (Bello) was not properly nominated.

    He argued that Bello did not participate in the electioneering processes as required by law before he emerged as the party’s candidate in rerun.

    The lawyer urged the court to allow the appeal and declare Faleke the proper candidate for the governorship seat.

    Lawyer to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Ahmed Raji (SAN) asked the court to uphold Bello’s election on the grounds that he was properly nominated by APC as a replacement to Abubakar Audu, who died during the election.

    Joseph Daudu (SAN), who represented Bello, argued that nomination of candidates for elections was the sole responsibility of a party. He contended that Bello, having been nominated in compliance with existing party laws, remained the authentic candidate.

    Daudu urged the court to dismiss the appeals against his client and uphold the decision of the tribunal that Bello was properly nominated.

    A five-man panel, led by Justice Jumai Hanatu Sanki, informed parties that the date for judgment in both appeals would be communicated.

  • Abia: Appeal Court asks Ikpeazu, others to await decision

    Abia: Appeal Court asks Ikpeazu, others to await decision

    •APGA’s Otti applies to join case

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has directed parties to the governorship dispute in Abia State not to take any step in the case pending its judgments on the seven appeals filed on the matter.

    Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, who presided over a panel of five justices of the court, ordered parties to “allow things remain the way they are at the moment”, pending when the court would give its judgment.

    The directive was informed by an observation by Alex Iziyon (SAN), the lawyer to Sampson Ogah, that Governor Okezie Ikpeazu is not legally the de facto occupant of the Abia State Government House.

    Iziyon said there were conflicting judgments on the status of Ikpeazu.

    Asked to comment on the de facto occupier of the Abia State Government House, Izinyon said he would not answer because it would imply that he had conceded.

    Justice Ogunwumiju said the court considered it important to avoid a misinterpretation of its ruling.

    She said the ruling of the court was for parties to remain as they were and should not be misconstrued as implying that the court had issued an order for a stay of execution.

    The court fixed August 9 for the hearing of all the appeals, including those filed by Ikpeazu, Friday Nwosu, Obasi Ekeagbala, Alex Otti and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The court also fixed August 8 for the hearing of an application by Otti to be made a party in the case.

    Otti, who was the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), is seeking to be made the governor after the judgment by Federal High Court, Abuja, which sacked Ikpeazu on the ground that he gave false information in his tax claims to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The APGA chieftain argued that Sampson Ogah, who the court ordered to be sworn in as a replacement for Ikpeazu, did not participate in all the election processes.

    In his notice of appeal, Ikpeazu raised five grounds of appeal upon which he asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment and the orders of the High Court.

    The governor averred that the Federal High Court lacked the power to order him to vacate his seat.

    He said the only power, authority and order exercisable by the Federal High Court was to disqualify the candidate from contesting the election, based on Section 31(6) of the Electoral Act 2010.

    Ikepazu also faulted the judge when he held that He (governor) did not pay his tax for 2011, 2012 and 2013 at when due when he was a public officer whose tax deduction was under Pay As You Earn (PAYE) scheme.

    The governor said tax deductions then were from the source of his monthly salary as calculated by the tax authorities who issued the tax receipts and certificates.

    He also said the Abia State Board of Internal Revenue Services, which issued him the tax certificates, had not declared them forged while the trial court did not invite the issuing authorities to give evidence during the trial.

    The PDP, represented by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and Joseph Nwobik (SAN), prayed the court to set aside the judgment by the Federal High Court.

    At a point, Ikpeazu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), applied to withdraw one of the three appeals he filed for his client on the ground that it had been overtaken by event.

     

  • Appeal Court: Oba Olanipekun remains Ataoja of Osogbo

    Appeal Court: Oba Olanipekun remains Ataoja of Osogbo

    The Appeal Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State capital has ordered that the Ataoja of Osogbo, Oba Jimoh Olanipekun to remain in office.

    It set aside the ruling of the Osun State High Court which held that the appointment and installation of the monarch was illegal.

    The high court presided over by Justice Yinka Aderibigbe in 2011 sacked the traditional ruler, after faulting his nomination, selection, appointment and installation processes.

    The kingmakers consequently approached the Appeal Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo state capital.

    Justice Ambi-Usi Danjuma in his judgement Friday faulted the order made by the High Court setting aside the action of the kingmakers on the basis that having heard a motion challenging his jurisdiction before him, the lower court ought to have heard the motion first and since it did not hear it, it could not have made any subsequent order like the one he made in setting aside the action of the kingmakers.

    The court ordered that Oba Olanipekun should continue to be in office as Ataoja of Osogbo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit at the high court.

    In his reaction the lead counsel of the first and second respondents, Mr. Adewale Adegoke said his team would have to study the judgment before taking the next step.

    ” We have not got copies of the judgment, we have not studied them, until we read and studied them we will now decide whether we should explore the right of appeal to the Supreme Court or applied that the case file should be transferred to the high court for continuation of hearing in high court. ”

    On the other hand, one of the counsels to the appellant, Mr. Gbadebo Adesina expressed delight over the judgment.

    He said it was in the interest of justice stressing that “there is no winner, there is no loser, the people of Osogbo are winning collectively.”