The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • ‘Day I spat fire in court’

    ‘Day I spat fire in court’

    Mr  Tope Alabi is a Lagos-based activist-lawyer. He is well known for his suit seeking the removal of controversial police chief Mbu Joseph Mbu. He also got a judgment against the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) banning imposition of fines on erring motorists, except by a mobile court. Alabi tells JOSEPH JIBUEZE what drives him.

    What motivated you to sue Mbu Joseph Mbu?

    I am a social crusader. I studied law, not to make money per se, but to defend the cause of the poor masses. This is my calling. I sued Mbu Joseph Mbu because of the statement he made that for every policeman killed, the lives of 20 to 100 civilians would go in exchange. To say the least, it was an inciting statement that could have caused mass killings of civilians, including myself. To prevent such occurrence, I sued him. Actually, I was not asking for his head, but to checkmate him and other lawless police officers, who believe that with their uniform, they can do whatever they like as if they are above the law.

    What about the FRSC?

    I sued FRSC for violating the provisions of the Constitution and ignorance of the provisions of the Federal Roads Safety Commission (Establishment Act) 2007 and the National Roads Traffic Regulation 2012. The law says driving with shattered windshield or without windscreen is illegal, but they arrested me because of a cracked windscreen. Its men directed me to pay a fine without justification or court trial. I won the case at the Federal High Court Lagos. We are now on appeal.

    What was your most memorable day in court?

    That was when I appeared in the FRSC case and that of Mbu. The senior lawyers, who represented the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the National Assembly and FRSC will not forget how we spat fire at each other.

    What was your worst day in court?

    My worst day in court was the day judgment in the Mbu case was delivered without hearing notice, even when our motion to adduce further evidence was still pending. I was sad because judgment was delivered when the case was yet to be concluded and Mbu escaped punishment.

    What kind of person do you think should be appointed Attorney-General of the Federation?

    An AGF should not be for cash and carry. The position should be for someone with specified expertise and demonstrable competence. It should also be for a person with clean record. It should be for someone who has achieved credit in the legal profession. It should be someone, who can prosecute corrupt politicians without fear or favour, not someone who will embark on selective prosecution.

    If you were to recommend, who would it be?

    I will strongly recommend Femi Falana (SAN). I believe he is an honest man, who will not compromise. He has contributed immensely to the legal profession. His appointment will add credibility to the government of the day. I am very sure he will sanitise the legal profession and the judiciary and help rid Nigeria of corruption.

     Who are your role models in rights activism?

    The late Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), Falana and my mentor Kunle Adegoke.

    What challenges do you face as a young activist?

    One problem is the issue of locus standi. When former House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Tambuwal was facing political challenges, I prepared a case to stop the police and the Federal Government from harassing him, but I could not go forward because I found it difficult to reach Tambuwal to sign the affidavit in support of the originating process. Besides that, I have several public interest cases I would like to litigate on, but I do not have sufficient financial capacity to pursue them. I am still a young lawyer.

    Is that all?

    I also face the challenge of my colleagues, who are aiding criminals to escape the axe of the law. For instance, a client was defrauded of millions of naira. The fraudster was ready to refund the money and directed his lawyer to negotiate with us. Instead of negotiating, the lawyer went to court to file for enforcement of right to stop the process.

    What is your advice to other young lawyers?

    They should be focused. They should pursue the knowledge first; money will come later. I got a good training under Dr Muiz Banire (SAN). I also learnt from my mentors, such as Adegoke, Taiwo Kupolati, Falana, Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who is a father to me.

    If you were not a lawyer, what would you likely have been?

    A teacher.

    Where do you see yourself in the next 10 years?

    I don’t like the bench. I don’t see myself being a judge. But I pray I become a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) as well as a Senior Advocate of the Masses (SAM).

     

  • ‘Some cases should terminate at Appeal Court’

    A Supreme Court Judge, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has called for an amendment of the Constitution so that some cases can terminate at the Court of Appeal.

    This, in addition to more deployment of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), she said, will reduce the Supreme Court’s workload.

    She spoke in a paper she delivered at the fifth annual lecture in honour of Prof Alfred Kasumu, which held at the University of Lagos.

    Justice Kekere-Ekun backed suggestions that some cases terminate at the Court of Appeal, adding that a review of the constitutional provisions governing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is necessary.

    “I am in full support of certain classes of cases terminating at the Court of Appeal. In my humble view, the amendment of the 1999 Constitution has added to the burden of the Supreme Court.

    “It made the Supreme Court the final court of appeal in respect of decisions arising from Governorship election tribunals.

    “Such appeals, by virtue of Section 285 (7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) must be concluded within 60 days from the date of the delivery of the judgment of the Court of Appeal,” she said.

    She said the provision has led to an influx of appeals and has also affected other cases pending before the court, which are already overdue for hearing,  but which had to be set aside while  election related appeals are heard and determined expediently.

    She also called for the use of more technology in court processes.

    “The global village is moving at a faster pace, the apex court of the most populous nation in Africa cannot be left behind. We must embrace information technology and take advantage of all that it offers along with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, where possible.

    “A reduction of the inflow of cases and more efficient management of the court’s docket will allow the justices to devote more of their time and resources to research, study, reading, consultations among themselves for the advancement and administration of justice.”

    In her paper entitled: the Nigerian Supreme Court: structural reforms for today’s dispensation of justice, Justice Kekere-Ekun said for the Supreme Court to discharge its role effectively, the adoption of Information technology will allow for easy sharing of information.

    She said it will also help to create a database for decided cases by all the courts and which will also be accessible by judicial officers anywhere.

    In addition, she said ICT will facilitate communication between the justices, the registry and other administrative staff. According to her, the project is capital intensive and requires political will, purposeful leadership, and the commitment of substantial resources.

    “It also requires training for the justices and upgrading the knowledge and skills of courts staff to enable them effectively manage the facilities.  The present leadership of the court is fully committed to this transformation.

    “The role of the Supreme Court today should primarily be that of development of legal policy and to discharge the role effectively, its current docket has to be greatly reduced,” she said.

    A life bencher, Mrs Hairat Balogun, who chaired the event, said hiring more research assistants will help to reduce unemployment and ease the justices’ workload.

     

  • Jos poll: Why Appeal Court overuled tribunal

    Jos poll: Why Appeal Court overuled tribunal

    For failing to take into cognisance the suigeneris nature of election petitions, which require strict compliance with the timings contained in the laws guiding election petition proceedings, the Court of Appeal sitting in Jos, Plateau State has set aside a ruling  of the Plateau State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.

    The appellate court granted an interlocutory application by the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in the April 11 election, Simon Lalong.

    Governor Lalong and his Deputy Prof Sonni Gwanle Tyoden defeated Gyang Nyam Shom Pwajok (GNS) and his running mate, Yilji Gomwalk, who contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Aggrieved by the declaration, Pwajok,  Gomwalk and the PDP filed a petition before the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal of Plateau vide PETITION NO. EPT/PL/GOV/2/2015 on May 2. Governor Lalong, the APC and INEC  are first, second and third respondents.

    The respondents filed their respective replies to the petition, each raising a preliminary objection on the grounds that the petitioners’ pleadings challenging, inter alia, the “generic, vague, nebulous and general” paragraphs of the Petition in breach of paragraph 4(1)(d) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and Order 13 Rules 4(1), 5 and 6(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 .

    The provisions require parties to furnish sufficient particulars in their pleadings to avoid taking the other party by surprise.

    The appellant also filed a substantive application on June 12, praying the tribunal to strike out the petition and/or the offending paragraphs.

    However, at the pre-hearing session, by agreement of parties and in the light of the provisions of paragraph 12(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the implication of the provision of Section 285(6) of the Constitution (as amended), the ribunal in its pre-hearing session report directed that all preliminary objections be argued and/or adopted with the final written addresses of parties in the petition and one composite judgment delivered by the tribunal.

    After the close of pre-hearing session, the petitioners on July 23 sought the tribunal’s leave to call an additional witness and to file the witness’ statement on oath. Among their prayers was an order granting leave for the hearing of the application outside the pre-hearing session.

    The pre-hearing session ended on June 29, while the application was filed on July 23.

    Earlier in the course of proceedings, and while seeking for more time to obtain documents from the INEC at the lower tribunal, the petitioners, through their lead counsel, Robert Clarke (SAN), told the tribunal that the documents earlier given to them were fake.

    After being granted leave to obtain fresh documents from INEC, the petitioners alleged that INEC refused to give them the documents they needed.

    The first and second respondents opposed the motion and filed counter-affidavits. They contended that no authentic report or document could emanate from the fake documents used by the petitioners.

    On August 1, the tribunal heard the application and delivered its ruling on August 5. Dissatisfied, the first respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on August 22.

    In the interlocutory appeal, Pwajok, Yilji Gomwalk, PDP, APC and INEC became the first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents. Governor Lalong filed his  brief of argument. The fourth and fifth respondents did not file any respondent’s brief at the Court of Appeal. However, the first to third respondents filed their brief of argument. They also filed a preliminary objection contending that the appellant  cannot appeal against an interlocutory ruling or decision delivered or made by the trial tribunal.

    The appellant, through his lead counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), formulated these issues: “Whether   the   lower   tribunal   was   not in   error   when   it  failed to appreciate the essence of the provision of paragraph 47(1) of the First Schedule to Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) by holding that the first to third petitioners /respondents did not need to seek and obtain the tribunal’s leave to get their July 23 application heard and determined outside pre-trial session; whether having regard to the sui generis nature of election petition, the provisions of section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and paragraphs 4(1 )(d); 4(5)(a), (b) and (c); 4(6) and 14(2) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the tribunal was not wrong to have granted the first to third petitioners/respondents’ application filed on July 23, which thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellants”.

    In its judgment delivered on September 22, the Court of Appeal Jos dismissed the objection of the first to third respondents. It allowed the appellant’s appeal and dismissed the application filed by the first to third respondents/petitioners.

    The Appellate Court further held that the tribunal was wrong when it failed to take into cognizance the sui generis (specially classified time bound proceedings) nature of election petitions which require strict compliance with the time-lines, which it held, must be adhered to.

    Counsel for Lalong, Mr. Jonathan Mawiyau, said: “I feel fulfilled because justice has been done according to law.  We had vehemently opposed the application because we believed that the grant of the prayers will automatically alter the content, structure and spirit of the petitioners’ complaints against the result and declaration of INEC respecting the April 11 2015 Governorship Election in Plateau State. It would certainly give a weak petition undeserved strength. We also believed that granting the prayers in the July 23 application will significantly amend the petition itself, albeit, outside the time-frame allowed by law for any amendments to be made.

    “There was ‘ingenuity’ in the tribunal’s decision that even before the application was filed, it had already, by virtue of its pre-hearing session report, granted leave to the petitioners to bring an application, making the application itself superfluous. That was a trap, which we had to escape, and to escape we had to appeal. Now that the Court of Appeal has fully agreed with our position and reasoning, we feel fulfilled.”

    On the effect of the judgment on the substantive matter before the Tribunal, Mawiyau said: “My  take is that we are now better positioned in our defence of the petition. Firstly, we have a Preliminary Objection before the lower Tribunal. Its ruling had in effect determined it even before it was argued. That was in spite of the fact that the same tribunal had, during the pre-hearing session, ruled that it would write a composite judgment touching the objection and the main petition. Now, there is an opportunity for the objection to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

    “Secondly, the tribunal can only refer to the so called expert’s evidence or the ‘forensic report’ and all those fake documents in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and strictly thereto.

    “If it is to be looked into at all, I am of the view that only the Supreme Court can do that since not even the Court of Appeal can look into it again,  particularly having regard to the sui generis nature of election petitions, which makes it most unlikely to have the time to refer the matter to any of the lower Courts.

    “I am more comfortable with that position since there, at the Supreme Court, the issues will be dealt with dispassionately.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Court remands technician over truck theft

    A 27 year-old Ghanaian technician with China Railway Construction Company, Paul John, who is being prosecuted at Ebute Metta Magistrate’s Court for allegedly stealing a truck worth N12 million has been remanded in prison custody.

    John was said to have conspired with two others now at large to steal the truck.

    It was learnt that the defendant was asked to look after the truck with registration No. LA265FZE while the driver was running an errand for the company. He took the vehicle to Ibadan and sold it instead.

    Investigating Police Officer (IPO), Dibia Godwin informed the court that John stole the truck on June 20 by 9:30 a.m. at China Railway Construction Company, Ebute Metta, Lagos.

    The Police Prosecutor, Corporal Iyobosa, told the court that the offences contravened Section 409 and 285 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

    The accused pleaded not guilty to the two-count charge bordering on conspiracy and stealing.

    Magistrate B.O. Ope Agbe in her discretion admitted the defendant to bail in the sum of N12 million and two sureties in like sum.

    The accused could not perfect the bail and was remanded in prison custody.

    The case was adjourned till October 12 for mention.

     

  • ‘Supreme Court needs structural reform’

    Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun of the Supreme Court has called for a review of the court to make judiciary perform its role optimally.

    She spoke at the fifth Prof A.B. Kasunmu Annual Lecture with the theme: The Nigerian Supreme Court: Structural reforms for today’s dispensation of justice.

    She was the keynote speaker at the lecture organised by the University of Lagos (UNILAG) Law Students’ Society. It was held in the main auditorium.

    Justice Kekere-Ekun said the process of justice administration must be accelerated to restore people confidence in the court as the last of the common man. She said appointment of more justices on the bench will not reduce the workload of the Supreme Court but said there was need for structural reform in the highest court of the land. To relieve the Supreme Court of its workload, she said certain appeal cases should be terminated at the Court of Appeal.

    Mrs Hairat Ade Balogun, who chaired the occasion, described Prof Kasunmu as one of the brilliant law teachers in the country. She said she regretted not being taught by the honoree.

    The comments and questions segment was anchored by Mrs. Hairat Ade Balogun, who urged the audience to keep their comments and questions short.

    Prof. A. O. Osipitan, said he was convinced the workload of the Supreme Court would reduce if the  justices on the bench were increased to 21 as against the 17 sitting on the bench. He also noted that the section on the Supreme Court in 1999 Constitution was not amended but only altered.

    Some of the guests in at the event J. P. Clark, Dr Akeem Bello, and Registrar, Joint University Preliminary Education Board, Prof Duro Adeyalemi.

     

     

     

  • Court stops monarch’s planned installation

    An Ado-Ekiti High Court has ordered parties in the kingship crisis rocking Orin-Odo community in Ikole Local Government Area to maintain status quo ante bellum, pending the hearing and determination of motion on notice.

    Justice Dele Omotoso gave the order yesterday in a ruling after listening to a motion ex-parte by counsel to the claimants/applicants, Dr. Babalola Abegunde.

    He subsequently adjourned the substantive suit till September 30.

    A contestant for the Olorin of Orin-Odo stool, Babatunde Matthew Ejioye, filed the motion ex-parte alongside three others against Akintayo Ogunjobi, and six others.

    There was tension in Orin-Odo yesterday, following reports that Governor Ayo Fayose had concluded arrangements to present staff of office and instruments of appointment to the second defendant, Femi Ogunjobi today.

    The claimants averred that the first defendant convened a meeting on July 27 and arbitrarily screened them out from the kingship race to pave way for Femi, his son and Adebisi Ogunjobi, his younger brother and third defendant.

    In his ruling, Justice Omotoso said: “The reasonable inference that this court can draw from this is that all parties in this suit are aware of the pendency of this suit as well as a motion for an order of interlocutory injunction.

    “There is need for parties to respect the sanctity of this court by maintaining status quo ante bellum in respect of the Olorin of Orin-Odo Ekiti chieftaincy stool, pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

    “Consequently, the motion is hereby adjourned till September 30.

    “The order of this interim injunction shall abate September 30. Hearing notice shall be issued and served on the parties or their learned counsel by the bailiff of this honorable court.”

  • Court resolves land dispute in Ojora family’s favour

    Court resolves land dispute in Ojora family’s favour

    A Lagos High Court has declared that the Ojora Ruling House has the Statutory Right of Occupancy over a vast parcel of land that has been the subject of litigation since 2012.

    The ruling is an addendum to an earlier one that gave the Ojora Royal Family the legal right to take possession of the entire Iganmu community, with effect from July 31, 2007.

    The property includes a substantial part of the land hosting 7up Bottling Company in Ijora.

    Justice Kazeem Alogba handed down the verdict in a 16-page judgment with Suit No. LD/443/2002: Oba Fatai Oyegbemi Aromire (Ojora of Lagos) and two others versus Chief Ogunyemi and thirty (30) other respondents.

    Following the delivery of the judgement last Wednesday, September 16, the Ojora ruling family swung into action in the early hours of Thursday, September 17, taking legal possession of the land.

    The family in company of policemen and High Court Deputy Sheriffs pasted notices, informing occupants of Badia, of the ruling of the High Court.

    The notice reads: “The claimant are persons entitled to possession of the parcel of land in Ijora – Badia between Orile – Iganmu, Ijora Express Road and container terminal to Ebute – Iganmu Ijora more particularly delineated and edged red on the survey plan”.

    The notice further declared the occupants as illegal trespassers and threatened to deal with them if they refuse to vacate the area according to the confines of the law.

    “Any person who remains in illegal possession or is found on the land covered by the judgement will henceforth be treated as trespassers and will be dealt with according to law,” the notice continued.

    In 2002, the paramount ruler of the Ijora kingdom, Oba Fatai Aremu Aromire Ojora, prayed the court for, among others, a declaration that his ruling house is entitled to the Statutory Right Of Occupancy of the disputed land, stating categorically that the defendants are trespassers on the land and prayed the court to issue an injunction restraining them from further trespassing on the land. Speaking with The Nation on the implication of the judgement, the elated Oba expressed fulfilment and gratitude to God for allowing the recovery of the land during his reign.

    “I am happy that this judgement has come during my reign and I thank God for helping the Ojora family to recover this stolen land. This land dispute has been in court since 2002 and after much controversy and court sessions, the judgment was delivered, returning our land to us.

    “Both the land and structures now belong to the Ojora family,” he said.

    The Oba insisted that there will not be any form of negotiation with the occupants, noting that they are squatters who never even purchased the landed property they are presently occupying.

    “They are migrants who were pursued when the National Theatre was to be built. They came to Ijora Badia and the Ojora of that time accommodated them. They started building and expanding so much that they claimed the land. It was not as if they bought the land. So, there won’t be any negotiation,” he said.

    Also speaking with our reporter, Barrister Kunle Jimoh of Segun and Segun Legal Practitioners, who handled the case from inception for the Ojora family, revealed that the legal battle for the land lasted 12 years until Justice K.O. Alogba delivered judgment in favour of the Ojora family last Thursday.

    He said that many justices had sat over the case within the 12-year period of litigation until Justice Alogba finally gave judgement.

    Jimoh added that although the Nigeria Railway Corporation (NRC) tried to delay the judgement from being passed, Justice Alogba, against all odds, delivered the judgement.

    When The Nation sought the views of the occupants of the community – house owners and tenants – on the new development, they were reluctant to speak. At Bimade Diagnostic Services in Ijora, owned by Mr. John Adeyemi, who also owns a set of shops in the community, the receptionist said the doctor was busy and referred The Nation to Mr Adeyemi’s lawyer.

     

  • Court to hear suit over estate Sept 28

    The Abia State High Court, Umuahia will on September 28 hear a suit filed by a former chairman of defunct Citizens International Bank, Lady Joyce Udensi Ifegwu.

    She sued the court’s probate registrar and six others, seeking to halt the issuance of letters of administration to the second defendant, Okafor Dike Udensi.

    Okafor is the son of the  late Lord Chief Dike Udensi Ifegwu from his first wife while the other defendants  are his siblings.

    The deceased’s children had applied to the probate for a letter of administration for their late father’s estate. The late Ifegwu allegedly died intestate.

    Other plaintiffs in the suit are Nkechinyere Dike Udensi, Emmanuel Dike Udensi and Margaret Mmannu Dike Udensi.

    Urum Udensi Ifegwu, Okorie Udensi Ifegwu, Mrs Iheanacho Kalu Aru (nee Udensi Ifegwu), Kalu Udensi Ifegwu, Eze Osogho Udensi Ifegwu and Agwu Udensi Ifegwu are the other defendants.

    Lady Ifegwu claimed that she married the deceased under the Marriage Act, therefore, she was entitled to be issued with the letter of administration.

    She prayed for order mandating the second defendant to produce details of rent proceeds and property sales from the estate.

    In her statement of claim, Lady Ifegwu said the deceased died intestate. She said there were married for 35 years.

    But in their statement of defence, the defendants, who are the deceased’s siblings, claimed that Lady Ifegwu was never married to their late brother.

    The defendants said they did not accompany their brother to perform any traditional marriage rites according to the tradition of her place in Delta. They argued that the marriage certificate she is presenting was not genuine.

    “Lord Chief Dike Udensi Ifegwu, late, was never married to the First Claimant either as alleged or at all, a position which until recently the defendants had thought to be otherwise.

    “Rather on January 7, 1977, the deceased wedded his lawful wife, Eunice Dike Udensi Ifegwu. The said marriage of January 7, 1977 was perfomed in accordance with the customary rites of marriage in Abiriba,” the defendants said.

    According to them, some of those rites included the payment of bride price, delivery of customary drinks among others.

    “The deceased and his said wife had this relationship until the demise of the former and there was no divorce in acccordance with customary law or under any other law,” they said.

    The defendants claimed that their brother was never married to the claimant.

    Besides, they said since there was already an existing lawful marriage under the customary law in 1978 when Lady Ifegwu claimed she got married, her marriage to their brother was null and void.

    The said it was invalid to contract such marriage under the Marriage Act, adding that there cannot be two lawful marriages, one under the custom and the other under statute between the deceased and two women.

     

     

  • Court of Appeal, Federal High Court refuse Saraki’s prayers to stop Tribunal

    The Court of Appeal has dismissed the ex-parte application by Senate President, Bukola Saraki, seeking to set aside the order made on Friday by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) issuing bench warrant for Saraki’s arrest.
    It said it cannot interfere with the proceedings pending at the lower court.
    It will be in the interest of notice for the respondents to be put on notice.
    Consequently the ex-parte application refused and the motion on notice set down for hearing on September 29
    Justice Armed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, in another ruling just delivered, refused a similar application by Saraki.
    He adjourned to September 30 for the hearing of the substantive suit by Saraki, challenging the competence of charge before the CCT and the preliminary objection filed by the CCT, Code of Conduct Tribunal and Federal Ministry of Justice.
    Justice Mohammed held that, in view of the constitutional and radical nature of the issues raised in the respondents’ objection, it was reasonable for the court not to waste time on interlocutory applications.

  • Appeal court dismisses PDP appeal against Otti

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri, on Thursday dismissed two separate but similar appeals brought to it by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) Dr. Alex Otti, and his party, APGA.

    The appeals originated from a decision of the Abia State Governorship Election Tribunal, sitting in Umuahia, in a unanimous judgment of a five-member panel of justices of the Court of Appeal.

    The court, which earlier struck out three out of the four issues raised by the PDP before dismissing the appeal, agreed that  the entire appeal is premature, as same is based on complaint against a ruling  which the tribunal has not yet delivered.

    It further stated that there is no infringement of the rights to fair hearing of the appellant, as they were rightly heard by the trial tribunal before ruling was adjourned within the 180 days stipulated by the constitution.

    Addressing newsmen at the end of the judgment which lasted for about one hour, counsel to Alex Otti and APGA, Nwala  Chukwudi Oracle Esq, said what the Appeal court did was giving effect to and affirming the sanctity of Paragraph 12 (5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act.

    He further said that the Appeal court could not have gone any other way than to confirm that the trial tribunal has the powers to take all preliminary motions along with the substantive petition. ‘’As a matter of fact, Paragraph 12 (5) is intended to reflect the sui

    generis nature of election matters.  The spirit and intendment of that paragraph is to suppress the mischief of delaying the election petition proceeding by ensuring that preliminary objections, whether on jurisdiction or not, raised in the course of the proceedings, did not derail the determination of the merit of a case by undue and unwarranted delays occasioned by preliminary objections.

    It will be recalled that on 3rd of September, the same Appeal court had dismissed a similar suit brought to it by Dr. Victor Okezie Ikpeazu against Dr. Alex Otti on the same basis that it  lacked merit and was a mere academic exercise.

    Meanwhile, the case at the trial tribunal had been adjourned to October 14, 2015 for the adoption of final written addresses of the parties