The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Court to deliver judgment in Saraki’s appeal Friday

    Court to deliver judgment in Saraki’s appeal Friday

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja is expected to deliver judgment on Friday in the appeal by Senate President, Bukola Saraki.

    Saraki, who is standing trial on a 13-count charge of false asset declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), is appealing the tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over his trial.

    The appellate court had, on October 16, after taking arguments from parties, fixed judgment for 2 pm on October 19, but failed deliver it on the ground that the judgment was not ready.

    The judgment was reserved indefinitely, with the court promising to communicate a new date to parties.

    It was learnt Thursday that notices were sent to parties informing them about Friday’s date.

    The delay by the Court of Appeal to deliver its judgment has stalled proceedings before the CCT, which has elected to await the appellate court’s decision before taking any further steps in Saraki’s trial.

    Listed as respondents in the appeal are the CCT, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the Federal Ministry of Justice and a lawyer in the ministry, Muslim Hassan.

    Arguing the appeal on October 16, Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), urged the appellate court to set aside the entire proceedings before the CCT, including the charge before it.

    He argued that the CCT was not properly constituted on when it assumed jurisdiction to entertain the charges because it was made up of two members as against three, which is provided for in Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.

    Daudu contended that the provision of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act relied upon by the respondents to argue that the tribunal could validly sit with its Chairman and one other member, was a contradiction of the three-member provision in the Constitution.

    He also argued that the tribunal not being a superior court recognised by the Constitution could not exercise criminal jurisdiction.

  • Supreme Court dismisses Ihedioha’s appeal

    Supreme Court dismisses Ihedioha’s appeal

    Former Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha lost Thursday in his challenge of Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha’s victory at the last governorship election in the state.

    The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the appeal by Ihedioha, who was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the election held on April 11. Okorocha was the candidate of the All Progressives Party (APC).

    A seven-man bench, led by Justice John Fabiyi, affirmed an earlier judgment by the Court of Appeal, Owerri, which held that Ihedioha’s failure to properly serve Okorocha and his party robbed the appellate court the jurisdiction to hear the case.

    The Supreme Court noted that Ihedioha’s failure to indicate, in the appeal processes (documents), addresses of other respondents was fatal to the case.

    The court consequently dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    The court also affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal to reject three separate motions which the appellant as petitioner had filed before the tribunal.

    The apex court held that it could not evoke its jurisdiction under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act since the appeal had been rightly dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

    Justice Iyang Okoro, who read the lead judgment, held that the Court of Appeal was right to have granted the preliminary objection raised against the service of notice of appeal by Okorocha.

    He upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that the appellants merely “dumped” the processes on the protocol officer of the APC instead of personal service provided for by the law.

    “Although the court is not a slave to its rule, it is the duty of the court to ensure that its rules are obeyed,” Justice Okoro ruled.

    He dismissed the appellant’s argument that the Appeal Court, having earlier ruled that the processes had been served on all the respondents, no longer had the power to subsequently rule that the respondents were not properly served.

    He held that the statement confirming that the respondents had been served was only that of a registrar of the court and not a decision of the court.

    Justice Okoro said: “The summary of all that I have said above is that the statement by the registrar that the processes had been served on all the respondents was not a decision of the lower court and does not preclude the court from satisfying itself from available records on whether the 26 absent respondents were actually served.

    “Secondly notice of appeal being an originating process, must be served personally on the respondents unless otherwise directed or ordered by the court or intended by the provision of the law.  In this case there was no such order.

    “On the whole, there is no merit in this appeal at all. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed by me.

    “Thus the judgment of the lower court (Court of Appeal) in Owerri delivered on September 3, 2015, which struck out the appeal of the appellant is hereby affirmed. Parties are to bear their respective costs.”

    The Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had, in a ruling on July 22, dismissed Ihedioha’s petition against Okorocha’s victory on ‎on the grounds that it was incompetence.

    Ihedioha appealed the ruling. The Court of Appeal, Owerri dismissed the appeal in its decision given on September 3, 2015, prompting the PDP candidate to appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • Saraki: Appeal Court fails to give verdict

    Saraki: Appeal Court fails to give verdict

    • Verdict adjourned indefinitely
    • Senate President returns to CCT tomorrow

    THE Court of Appeal yesterday failed to deliver judgment in the case filed by Senate President Bukola Saraki against the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    A female court official told the parties that the verdict was not ready, adding that they would be notified as soon as it is ready.

    She gave no details on what infomed the development.

    This is not the first time that the appeal or Supreme Court will defer verdicts.

    It is an age-long practice by the appellate courts to postpone verdicts to enable them give what is known in legal parlance as “considered decision”.

    Saraki’s trial before the CCT resumes tomorrow.

    If the verdict is delivered before then and it favours him, the case will be discontinued.

    But if he loses, the trial will go on.

    Saraki’s supporters left the appellate court disappointed following the non-delivery of the verdict.

    Last Friday, the appeal court after taking arguments from parties, fixed judgment for 2pm yesterday.

    Saraki, who was arraigned last month before CCT on a 13-count charge for alleged false asset declaration, is appealing the tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over his trial.

    But lawyers to the parties, Kehinde Eleja (SAN) – for the appellant – and  Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) – for respondents – said they would not pre-empt the court, but will await it’s decision whenever it is ready.

    Eleja said he was told by the court registrar that the judgment was not ready.

    Jacobs said: “We don’t know yet what the court’s decision will be. We don’t know if the Court of Appeal will deliver its judgment before the tribunal’s next adjourned date.”

    CCT Chairman Justice Danladi Umar had, after Saraki’s arraignment on September 22, adjourned to October 21 for the hearing of pending applications, particularly the preliminary objection filed by the defendant.

    He said trial would begin after the pending applications were decided.

    On October 8, a three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Moore Adumein, granted accelerated hearing in Saraki’s appeal, promising to give judgment before his appearance before the CCT on October 21.

    Listed as respondents in the appeal are the CCT, Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Federal Ministry of Justice and a lawyer in the ministry, Muslim Hassan.

    Arguing the appeal on Friday, Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), urged the appellate court to set aside the entire proceedings before the CCT, including the charge before it.

    He argued that the CCT was not properly constituted when it assumed jurisdiction to entertain the charges because it was made up of two members as against three, which is provided for in Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.

    Daudu contended that Section 28 of the Interpretation Act relied upon by the respondents to argue that the tribunal could validly sit with its chairman and one other member, was a contradiction of the constitutional three-member provision.

    He also argued that the tribunal, not being a superior court recognised by the Constitution, could not exercise criminal jurisdiction.

    Daudu said the CCT could not exercise the power of “a court to enable it to do some of the things they did which were exclusive to a court of criminal jurisdiction”.

    The lawyer contended that an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal (per Justice Aboki in the case by ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar) on which the CCT relied on to assume jurisdiction in the case, was wrong.

    He argued that the appellate court’s pronouncement in the Atiku case to the effect that proceedings at the CCT were “criminal in nature,” was a mere obiter (a non-binding opinion).

    Daudu argued that the CCT was an inferior court to the Federal High Court and ought to stay proceedings and await the determination of the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Saraki before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    In a counter-argument, respondents’ lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the suit, on the grounds that it was based on a “misconception and wrong interpretation of the law”.

    He faulted Daudu’s prayer in dismissing the charge on the grounds that the tribunal was not properly constituted because two of its three members were currently sitting.

    “Their prayer is at large. If they are contesting the proceedings of the tribunal of September 18, how does that affect the charge before the tribunal,” he said.

    Jacobs argued that two of the three members of the tribunal could validly conduct proceedings by virtue of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act recognised by the Constitution in Section 308(4).

    He added that Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution dealt with the establishment and composition of the panel, but it was silent on the number of the members that formed its quorum.

    He faulted Daudu’s position that the argument that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Atiku Abubakar’s case was an obiter.

    Justice Moore Adumein had earlier struck out the appellant’s application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

     

  • PDP fingers Appeal Court in tribunal interference

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has accused the office of the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa of undue interference in ongoing election petition cases.

    According to the party, reports emanating from Justice Bulkachuwa’s office indicated that there were moves to sway judgments against PDP candidates at the various election petition tribunals and other judicial cases.

    In a statement issued by PDP’s National Publicity Secretary, Chief Olisa Metuh, the party cautioned against attempts to detract from the sanctity of the judiciary just to favour the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) candidates.

    The statement said, “While we would not want to believe that the President of the Court of Appeal is so involved, given the sensitivity of her office, we wish to caution in very strong terms, that such is completely unacceptable as it principally detracts from the sanctity of the judiciary as the citadel of justice and erode the trust reposed on it by the people.

    “We expect the President of the Court of Appeal to understand that an impartial judiciary is critical to the survival of our democracy and the stability of this nation. In this regard therefore, we urge her to ensure that there is no further interference in electoral matters in tribunals and courts, as they must be allowed to run through the full course of justice.

    “Furthermore, we wish to reiterate our earlier call on the Chief Justice of the Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed to guide jealously the independence of the judiciary which he heads, and ensure that any activity that tends to undermine the sanctity of this arm of government is stiffly resisted in the interest of democracy.

    “In any case, the PDP restates that it will continue to closely monitor proceedings in various tribunals and other judicial cases, and will use every means within the ambit of the law to ensure that nobody, no matter how highly placed, interferes in judicial matters, especially political cases.”

  • Assets declaration trial: Appeal Court rules on Saraki Monday

    Assets declaration trial: Appeal Court rules on Saraki Monday

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja will on Monday decide whether or not the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) could proceed with the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki on charges of false asset declaration.

    The appellate court yesterday chose Monday for judgment in an appeal by Saraki, after taking arguments from parties in the case.

    Saraki, who was arraigned last month before the CCT on a 13-count charge of false asset declaration, is appealing the tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over his trial.

    Listed as respondents in the appeal are the CCT, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the Federal Ministry of Justice and a lawyer in the ministry, Muslim Hassan.

    Arguing the appeal yesterday, Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), urged the appellate court to set aside the entire proceedings before the CCT, including the charge before it.

    He argued that the CCT was not properly constituted when it assumed jurisdiction to entertain the charges because it was made up of two members as against three, which is provided for in Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.

    Daudu contended that the provision of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act relied upon by the respondents to argue that the tribunal could validly sit with its Chairman and one other member, was a contradiction of the three-member provision in the Constitution.

    He also argued that the tribunal, not being a superior court recognised by the Constitution, could not exercise criminal jurisdiction.

    Daudu said the CCT lacked the power to exercise the power of “a court to enable it to do some of the things they did which were exclusive preserve of a court with criminal jurisdiction.”

    Daudu contended that an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal (per Justice Aboki in the case by ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar) on which the CCT relied to assume jurisdiction over the case, was wrong.

    He argued that the appellate court’s pronouncement in the Atiku case, to the effect that proceedings at the CCT were “criminal in nature,” was a mere obiter (a non-binding opinion).

    Daudu also argued that the CCT is an inferior court to the Federal High Court, and ought to stay proceedings and await the determination of the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Saraki before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    In a counter-argument, respondents’ lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds it was based on “misconception and wrong interpretation of the law.”

    He faulted Daudu’s prayer for the dismissal of the charge on the grounds that the panel of the tribunal was not properly constituted because two of its three members are currently sitting.

    “Their prayer is at large. If they are contesting the proceedings of the tribunal of September 18, how does it affect the charge before the tribunal,” he said.

    Jacobs argued that two out of the three members of tribunal could validly conduct proceedings by virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act recognised by the Constitution in its section 308(4).

    He argued that the provision of Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution dealt with the establishment and composition of the panel, it was silent on the number of the panel members that formed its quorum.

    He faulted Daudu’s position that the argument that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Atiku Abubakar’s case was an obiter.

    “The decision of this court (the Court of Appeal), cannot be an obiter. The Court of Appeal ruled that the case at the Code of Tribunal was purely criminal and Justice Aboki who read the judgment said I so hold, meaning that it is a finding of fact,” Jacobs argued.

    Jacobs described as misconception, the argument by the appellant that without a sitting Attorney-General of the Federation, the CCB could not validly file a charge against anybody.

    Earlier, Justice Moore Adumein, who presided, struck out the appellant’s application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

    Justice Adumein said going ahead to hear the motion and write a separate ruling on it would amount to “a waste of judicial time” since the substantive appeal which would effectively decide the entire suit had been heard

  • Appeal Court dismisses Otti’s application

    Appeal Court dismisses Otti’s application

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri, the Imo State capital yesterday struck out the appeal by the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in the general election, Dr. Alex Otti.

    Otti challenged the decision of the tribunal for refusing to grant him extension of time to call more witnesses in his petition against Governor Okezie Ikpeazu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Chairman of the Appeal Panel Justice Jimmy Bada noted that the lower Court did the right thing by refusing the time extension as it would amount to waking up a dead person after the parties had submitted their final addresses and fresh witnesses were allowed.

    The court noted that the application failed on the three issues presented before it, saying it was also wrong for the applicant to fail to front load the pre-trial materials from the lower tribunal, saying it amounted to accepting the decision of the lower court.

    Bada agreed with counsel to the first respondent, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), that the decision to file an appeal by the applicant was a “mere academic exercise”.

    “Though counsel to the applicant noted that there would be life in the matter if the appeal succeeds, reopening a matter for fresh evidence when final addresses have been submitted is alien to our law”, he said.

    The appellate court, after a review of the notices submitted for and against by counsel to the parties, upheld the preliminary objection sought by Olanipekun to dismiss the appeal.

    “Granting the reliefs sought by the applicant would amount to over-enriching the applicant against the other parties and therefore, the appeal failed… and is struck out”, the court said.

  • Appeal Court to hear Saraki’s case Oct 16

    Appeal Court to hear Saraki’s case Oct 16

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja said Thursday that it will hear the appeal by Senate President, Bukola Abubakar Saraki on October 16.

    SarakI is before the appellate court to challenge the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to try him based on the 13-count charge of false assets declaration filed against him by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    A three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Moore Adumein-led panel of the Court of Appeal, while granting accelerated hearing in the case, promised to render its judgment before Saraki’s next appearance before the CCT on October 21.

    Chairman of the CCT, Danladi Umar had, on September 22 after Saraki pleaded not guilty to the charge upon his arraignment, fixed October 21 for further proceedings in the case.

    Saraki’s lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN) urged the appellate court to expeditiously determine his client’s appeal on the ground that time was of the essence.

    Saraki has, along with his appeal, filed as application seeking to stay proceedings before the CCT pending the determination of his appeal.

    Hearing of the application for stay of proceedings may no longer be necessary in view of the appellate court’s decision to give its judgment in the main appeal before October 21.

    Saraki, in his appeal, wants the Court of Appeal to declare that the CCT lacked the jurisdiction to try him based on the charge brought against him. He also wants the court to quash the charge for being incompetent.

    Saraki is, in his appeal, raising similar issues earlier canvassed before the CCT, which the tribunal disregarded.

    They include that the tribunal was not properly constituted, in that it currently has a member sitting with the Chairman as against the constitutional provision of two members and the Chairman.

    He also challenged the competence of the charge on the ground that it was not filed by a substantive Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    Saraki equally faulted the process leading to the filing of the charge, arguing that was not confronted with the alleged discrepancies in his declaration, as required by law, before the charge was filed against him.

    It is also his contention that since assets declaration is undertaken by every public officer every four years, a charge could not legitimately be filed against based on the declaration he made in 2003.

    Named as respondents to the appeal are the Chairman of the CCB, Chairman of the CCT, the Federal Ministry of Justice and an official of the ministry, Muslim Hassan, who endorsed the charge against Saraki.

    The Senate President is charged among others, with failure to declare property on Plot 2A, Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos; failure to declare property on No 1, Tagus Street, Maitama, Abuja (Plot 2482, Cadastral Zone A06, Abuja) and failure to declare property No 3, Tagus Street, Maitama, Abuja (Plot 2481, Cadastral Properties Limited).

    He is also accused of claiming to own property on No 42, Gerard Road, Ikoyi and earning N110, 000,000 per annum at a time the property was under construction; failure to declare N375m GTB loan converted to 1.5m Pound Sterling and used to purchase property in London; operating a foreign bank account; transfer of $3.4m from GTB to foreign bank account during his tenure as governor and failure to declare leasehold interest in No. 42, Remi Fani-Kayode Street, Ikeja.

    Saraki was equally accused of making anticipatory asset declaration of a house in Ikoyi in the asset declaration form he submitted to the CCB in 2003.

  • Rivers: Appeal Court reserves judgment in Wike, PDP appeals

    Rivers: Appeal Court reserves judgment in Wike, PDP appeals

    •Party seeks reversal of tribunal’s relocation to Abuja

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in the appeals filed by the Peoples Democratic Party ?(PDP) and the governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike.

    The PDP and Wike, who was the party’s governorship candidate in the last election, are by their appeals, challenging two decisions by the Rivers State governorship election petitions tribunal, currently sitting in Abuja.

    The appellants want the appellate court to set aside the tribunal’s ruling, where it held that it was validly constituted and that, for security reasons, it could sit in Abuja as against Port-Harcourt, to determine the petition filed against Wike’s election.

    PDP and Wike also want the Court of Appeal to set aside the permission granted the petitioners – All Progressives Congress ( APC) and its governorship candidate, Dakuku Peterside – to inspect materials used for the April 11 governorship election.

    Arguing his client’ appeal yesterday, Wike’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala urged the court uphold the appea on the ground that the tribunal was wrong in granting the petitioners the permission to inspect election materials without given them (the appellants) adequate notice.

    Ukala equally urged the court to reverse the tribunal’s decision to the effect that it could sit outside the state where election was held to determine dispute from such election for security reasons.

    Lawyer to the PDP, Ifedayo Adedipe aligned with Ukala in his submission and urged the court to allow his client’s appeal.

    In a counter-argument, lawyer to APC and Peterside, Akin Olujinmi (SAN) urged the court to dismissed the appeals for lacking in merit and substance.

    Olujimi was of the view that the tribunal was right in sitting in Abuja for security reasons.

    He also argued that the tribunal was in order in granting permission to the petitioners to inspect all the materials used for the disputed election.

    Olujinmi said the tribunal, headed by Justice Muazu Pindiga, was right when it held that it was properly constituted to determine the petition by the APC and Peterside.

    Presiding judge, Justice Abubakar Yahaya, after listening to arguments by parties and heard them adopted their briefs, informed them that a date will be communicated to them for the court’s decision.

     

  • Appeal Court: Faulty card reader can’t invalidate an election

    A faulty card reader cannot be a ground for invalidating an election, the court of Appeal in Lagos said yesterday.

    The court held that the Electoral Act (2010) as amended does not recognise the malfunctioning of a card reader as one of the factors that can lead to the nullification of an election.

    This, the appellate court held, is because the Electoral Act predates the introduction of the card reader.

    The Court of Appeal stated this in a verdict on a cross-appeal filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging parts of the Governorship Election Tribunal’s verdict in the case of Jimi Agbaje versus Governor Akinwunmi Ambode and others.

    APC  filed the cross-appeal  on two grounds. In the first ground, it said the tribunal erred in law when, having held that Paragraph 14 of Agbaje’s petition challenged Ambode’s nomination, went ahead to hold that it was a valid ground.

    The party said any complaint about a pre-election issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal or Lagos State High Court, therefore, the tribunal ought to have declined jurisdiction.

    The party also asked that Agbaje’s petition be struck out because its paragraph 13b which complained about faulty card readers did not qualify as a ground to challenge the April 11 election.

    The Court of Appeal, in a judgment by Justice Obande Festus Ogbuinya, resolved the first issue in Agbaje and PDP’s favour, and the second issue in APC’s favour.

    A copy of the judgment, delivered on August 26, was obtained by our correspondent yesterday. Other justices on the panel were A. J. Abdulkadir, Mohammed Danjuma, Emmenuel Agim and Saidu Hussaini.

    Agbaje, the PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Ambode and the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) were the cross-respondents.

    The appellate court held that both the High Courts and the tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of a candidate’s qualification/disqualification.

    Justice Ogbuinyi held: “The cross-appellant (APC) implored this court to declare the paragraph 14 a pre-election matter cognisable only in the regular courts because it alluded to 21 days notice decreed in Section 85 (1) of the Electoral Act. The cross-appellant made heavy weather of this point.

    “The paragraph 14 of the petition qualifies as a valid ground for querying the qualification of the fourth cross-respondent (Ambode) to contest the election.

    “The trial tribunal is the forum competens for the first and second cross-respondents (Agbaje and PDP) to ventilate their grouse on his (Ambode’s) qualification/disqualification. Put simply, the trial tribunal was clothed with jurisdiction over paragraph 14 of the petition.

    “In the end, I have no option than to resolve issue one against the cross-appellant and in favour of the first and second cross-respondents.”

    Resolving the second issue in APC’s favour, the appellate court held: “The paragraph (13b) displays a vitriolic attack on the irregularities germinating from the improper or non-use of the smart card readers in the polling units.

    “As it is, it has no life of its own as a ground. It endeavours to introduce the defects in the use of smart card readers. The evolution of the concept of smart card reader is a familiar one. It came to being during the last general election. On this score, it is a nascent procedure injected into our infant and fledgling electoral system to ensure credible and transparent election.

    “The extant Electoral Act (2010) which predates the concept (of card reader) is not its parent or progenitor. Since it is not the progeny of the Electoral Act, fronting it as a ground to challenge any election does not have its (the Electoral Act’s) blessing, nay Section 138 (1) of it.

    “Put simply, a petitioner cannot project the non-presence or improper use of smart card reader as a ground for questioning an election. It does not qualify as one.

    “On the whole, having resolved the two issues for and against the cross-appellant, the fate of the cross-appeal is obvious. It is partially-meritorious and succeeds in part. Consequently, I allow the cross-appeal in part.

    “Accordingly, I affirm the portion of the trial tribunal’s decision declaring paragraph 14 of the petition as competent and triable by it. I set aside its part of the decision which approved paragraph 13 (b) as a competent ground for presenting a petition.”

    The Court of Appeal had upheld the Governorship Election Tribunal’s decision which struck out Agbaje’s petition and upheld Ambode’s victory.

     

  • Faulty card reader cannot invalidate election – Court

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos has held that a faulty card reader cannot be a ground for invalidating an election.

    The court held that the Electoral Act (2010) as amended does not recognise the malfunctioning of a card reader as one of the factors that can lead to the nullification of an election.

    This, the appellate court held, is because the Electoral Act predates the introduction of the card reader.

    The Court of Appeal stated this in a verdict on a cross-appeal filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging parts of the Governorship Election Tribunal’s verdict in the case of Jimi Agbaje versus Governor Akinwunmi Ambode and others.

    APC had filed the cross-appeal based on two grounds. In the first ground, it said the tribunal erred in law when, having held that Paragraph 14 of Agbaje’s petition challenged Ambode’s nomination, went ahead to hold that it was a valid ground.

    The party said any complaint about a pre-election issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal or Lagos State High Court, therefore, the tribunal ought to have declined jurisdiction.

    The party also asked that Agbaje’s petition be struck out because its paragraph 13b which complained about faulty card readers did not qualify as a ground to challenge the April 11 election.

    The Court of Appeal, in a judgment by Justice Obande Festus Ogbuinya, resolved the first issue in Agbaje and PDP’s favour, and the second issue in APC’s favour.

    A copy of the judgment, delivered on August 26, was obtained by our correspondent on Monday. Other justices on the panel were A. J. Abdulkadir, Mohammed Danjuma, Emmenuel Agim and Saidu Hussaini.

    Agbaje, the PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Ambode and the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) were the cross-respondents.

    The appellate court held that both the High Courts and the tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of a candidate’s qualification/disqualification.