The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court upholds order barring APC from conducting primaries

    The Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt division given on October 31, 2018 in relation to the primaries conducted by the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment of a five-man panel, also dismissed the appeal, marked: CA/PH/198/2018, filed by the APC against the interlocutory ruling by Justice Chiwendu Nwogu of the High Court of Rivers State on May 11, 2018.

    Justice Nwogu had, in the ruling in the suit marked: BHC/78/2018, filed by Ibrahim Umah and 22, granted an order of interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondent (APC) “from conducting any local government area congress in Rivers State on May 12, 2018 or any other date.”

    Justice Dauda Sidi Bage, who read the lead judgment of the Supreme Court, yesterday, dismissed objection filed by the APC against the appeal, marked: SC/1070/2018 and and upheld the appeal.

    The appeal was filed by Ibrahim Umah and 22 others, with the APC as sole respondent.

    Umah and 22 others had, in the appeal, challenged the October 31, 2018 decision of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt, rejecting the notice of withdrawal filed by a lawyer, Felix. C. Nwafor, who claimed to be acting for the APC.

    The facts of the appeal, as stated by the appellants, were that, after the May 11, 2018 ruling by Justice Nwogu, APC’s lawyer, Tuduru Ede, filed a notice of appeal marked: CA/198/2018, against the ruling, without the knowledge of the party (APC).

    They stated that when the APC heard about the appeal, its Head, Legal Services, Dare Oketade, objected to the filing of the appeal and directed that it be discontinued, a directive Felix Nwafor complied with by filing a notice of withdrawal on September 13, 2018.

    The appellant contended that the Court of Appeal in Port-Harcourt rather than dismiss the appeal upon the notice of withdrawal by Nwafor, proceeded to give a decision on October 31, 2018, and refused to dismiss the appeal marked: CA/198/2018 on the ground that it was not satisfied that Nwafor was acting for the APC.

    They, among others, prayed the Supreme Court to exercise its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act 2004 to dismiss the appeal since the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt failed to dismiss the appeal by virtue of Order 11 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

    Justice Bage, in dismissing the objection filed by APC, through its lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), noted that by the two letters written by Oketade, dated July 31, 2018 (to the principal partner of Tuduru Ede & Co and Lateef Fagbemi, SAN & Co) there was evidence that Nwafor acted without the consent of the APC.

    Justice Bage determined the two issues raised for determination in favour of the appellants, upheld the appeal and granted all the reliefs sought by the appellants.

    The judge proceeded to set aside the ruling of October 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt and dismissed the appeal No: CA/198/2018 pursuant to Order 11 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rule, the appeal having been withdrawn under Order 1 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

    Justice Bage said: “The letter dated 3rd August 2018 was, assuming it was valid, for Fagbemi (SAN) to act as ‘the only counsel on record.’ He cannot also use same as basis for leading others, including Tuduru Ede, esq.

    “A change of counsel would have reversed or regularised the development. The letter to Fagbemi (SAN) to ‘contInue to act as counsel on record’ is a misnomer. He has never been counsel on record, save for Tuduru Ede, esq, who initiated the appeal, by filing the notice of appeal.

    “The instruction of Felix C. Nwafor, esq was direct and specific. He was not to act as counsel on record. He had the mandate of the respondent to discontinue the appeal by filing a notice of withdrawal, which he did.

    “There is nowhere in this appeal or records where the instruction of Felix C. Nwafor, esq, to this effect, has been denied or withdrawn.

    “This was further strengthened by the averments contained in the affidavit deposed to by Chieme Chinweikpe, esq, in support of the motion on notice dated 12th September, 2018 as contained at pages 31 – 35 of the records of appeal.

    “Clearly, from the foregoing, I have no hesitation in holding that it is inappropriate for the lower court to now rely on its previous decision of June 21, 2018 in October 31, 2018 to circumvent the effect of the notice of withdrawal when in actual fact, the Supreme Court, being the apex court in the nation’s judicial hierarchy, had set aside the ruling on October 22, 2018 in SC/764/2018 – APC vs. Ibrahim Umah & others.

    “It is my considered opinion that this appeal must be given a decent burial. The appeal, having been withdrawn, is deemed to have been dismissed. This is what the lower court failed or evaded for reasons stated above.

    “Therefore, by virtue of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 2004, the lower court, having failed to exercise its powers as provided under Order 11 Rule 5, this court is bound to do so.

    “Thus, I will allow this appeal and set aside the ruling of the lower court dated 31th October 2018. I hereby dismiss appeal No: CA/PH/198/2018 same having been validly withdrawn,” Justice Bage said.

  • Rivers 2019: We are studying judgement, says APC

    … says Ayogu Eze remains Enugu party’s governorship candidate

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) has said it was studying the Friday judgement of the Supreme Court as it concerned its participation in the 2019 Rivers governorship election.

    The party also said Senator Ayogu Eze remain its governorship candidate in Enugu state as the man the court ask INEC to recognise was not known to the party and never participated in the primaries conducted by the party.

    This was made known in a statement on Friday by the National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Lanre Issa-Onilu, that the only option left for the party was to review the judgement and see what other legal means is left.

    He said, “Our legal department is looking into the judgement of the Supreme Court. It is not the kind of judgement we looked forward to base on the facts that we are aware of. The only option before us now is to review this judgement and see what other means that is legal.

    “We think we deserve to field candidates in Rivers state. We know we did the right thing. We had our primaries even though there are issues around it. I don’t know why it appears the APC is the only party that is being subjected to this kind of scrutiny from the electoral body”.

    “It is the same APC that PDP has continued to raise flags as being the party that wants to rig election and is supposed to be working in cahoots with INEC. If this is the way to work in cahoots with INEC, we need to ask further questions. We know what we did in Rivers compared to what PDP did in many of the thirty-six states”.

    Read also: PDP hails Supreme Court’s ruling on Rivers APC

    “PDP shouldn’t field candidates in many states if the same parameters applied by the electoral body are applied to the PDP. Our legal department will review the outcome of this as unpalatable as it is and we will be able to say categorically the next step we might be taking and come out with it in due course”.

    On the judgement disqualifying Senator Ayogu Eze as the party candidate in Enugu state, Onilu said the party stand by Senator Ayogu Eze, stating that he remains the governorship candidate in Enugu state

    He said “We would say that we have acknowledged the judgement of the court but we do know the party followed the procedure and the processes that led to the emergence of Senator Ayogu Eze is what this party believes in. We believe that the Appeal Court will do the right thing and upturning it”.

    “Senator Ayogu Eze remains in the eyes of the party, the governorship candidate for Enugu state. The person that has been so declared by a court is unknown to this party because he did not even participate in the primaries that we organised. So there is no way he could have emerged as our candidate.

    “Again, as I speak to you we have appealed the judgement and secured a stay of execution. So even legally as at today, Senator Ayogu Eze is the candidate of APC in Enugu state. We are very confident he is going to deliver.”

  • Breaking: Supreme Court voids Appeal Court’s judgment on Rivers APC

    The Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt division on October 31, 2018.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment of a five-man panel, also dismissed the appeal, marked: CA/PH/198/2018 filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the interlocutory ruling by Justice C. Nwogu of the High Court of Rivers State on May 11, 2018.

    Justice Nwogu had, in the ruling in the suit, Marked: BHC/78/2018 filed by Ibrahim Umah and 22, granted an order of interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondent (APC) “from conducting any Local Government Area congress in Rivers State on May 12, 2018 or any other date.”

    Read Also: Supreme Court strikes out Senate’s suit over CJN’s suspension

    Justice Dauda Sidi Bage, who read the lead judgment on Friday, dismissed the APC’s objection to the appeal, marked: SC/1070/2018 filed by Ibrahim Umah and 22 others against the APC and upheld the appeal.

  • Updated: Supreme Court strikes out Senate’s suit over CJN’s suspension

    The Supreme Court has struck out the suit filed by the Senate, challenging President Muhammadu Buhari’s suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Lawyer to the Senate, Paul Erokoro (SAN) told the court when the case was called on Tuesday, that he filed a notice of discontinuance on Monday.

    Erokoro, who said the notice of discontinuance had been served on the defendants, was silent on why the plaintiff chose to discontinue the case.

    Lawyer to President Buhari, Mrs. Maimuna Lami-Shiro, who led Tijani Gazali, confirmed being served with the notice but said she was served few minutes before the court sat.

    Read Also: Onnoghen: Senate discontinues Supreme Court case

    Mrs. Lami-Shiro did not object to the plaintiff’s decision to withdraw the case.

    In a unanimous ruling, a seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, struck out the suit.

    Although a lawyer, Chief A. A. Adeniyi, announced appearance for the party seeking to be joined in the suit (the All Progressives Congress caucus in the Senate), the court could not hear his application in view of the plaintiff’s notice of discontinuance.

    The Senate had, by the suit marked: SC76/2019, queried among others, the constitutionality of the suspension of the CJN by President Buhari.

  • Breaking: Supreme Court strikes out Senate’s suit over CJN’s suspension

    The Supreme Court has struck out the suit filed by the Senate, challenging President Muhammadu Buhari’s suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Lawyer to the Senate, Paul Erokoro (SAN) told the court, when the case was called on Tuesday morning, that he filed a notice of discontinuance on Monday in the suit marked: SC76/2019.

    Erokoro was silent on why the plaintiff chose to discontinue the case.

    Lawyer to President Buhari, Mrs. Maimuna Lami Shiro, who led Tijani Gazali, did not object to the plaintiff’s decision to withdraw the case, following which the court struck out the suit.

    Details later…

  • Onnoghen’s suspension: Senate APC caucus seeks to join suit

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) Senate Caucus Monday applied to the Supreme Court to be joined in the suit filed by the Senate challenging the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    The application of the APC Caucus to be joined in the suit is coming despite the withdrawal of the suit by the leadership of the upper chamber.

    The Senate President, Bukola Saraki, had in a statement said that they decided to discontinue the case due to the intervention of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the matter.

    Senate Leader, Senator Ahmad Lawan, in another statement, said that the APC caucus decided to join in the suit to challenge the inclusion of its members by the leadership.

    Read Also: Onnoghen’s suspensionnot signal to dictatorship – FG

    The statement reads: “The Senate caucus ‎of the All Progressives Congress (APC), consisting 56 senators, being the majority party in the Senate, today Monday, 4th February, 2019, applied to the Supreme Court, to join in the suit purportedly filed by the Senate, against the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as interested parties.

    “The APC senators rely on the Supreme Court (Additional ‎Original Jurisdiction) Act of 2002, which provides that the resolution of the respective chambers of the National Assembly is a prerequisite of filing such suit.

    “The caucus is therefore challenging the said suit and objects to the inclusion of its members.”

    It is not clear whether the Senate APC caucus application to be joined in the suit was made before the Senate withdrew the suit.

    It is also not clear if the caucus will insist on going ahead with the suit.

  • Onnoghen: Senate discontinues Supreme Court case

    The Senate Monday ordered the discontinuation of the case it filed at the Supreme Court on the suspension of Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen.

    The upper chamber said that its decision to discontinue the case followed the intervention of the National Judicial Council (NJC) on the issue.

    A statement by the Special Adviser to the Senate President on media and Publicity, Yusuph Olaniyonu, the Senate announced that it has decided to give the NJC intervention a chance.

    “The Senate has therefore decided to discontinue the case it filed in the Supreme Court. It should be noted that the case has been slated for hearing tomorrow. This decision also affirms the confidence of the Senate in the ability of the NJC to successfully and creditably resolve the issues,” the statement stated.

    Read Also: Onnoghen: 20 SANs protest ‘rot’ in Judiciary

    The Senate has gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the suspension of Justice Onnoghen.

    It specifically asked the apex court to consider whether the suspension of Onnoghen without recourse to the Senate does not amount to the usurpation of the powers of the upper chamber.

  • Gbajabiamila opposes Senate over Onnoghen

    The House of Representatives has flayed the Senate for going to the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the constitution over the case of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onneghen.

    In a statement released by the Majority leader of the House,  Femi Gbajabiamila yesterday, the Senate erred in not carrying the House along in the matter

    Gbajabiamika said: “It has come to my understanding that the Senate has gone to the Supreme Court for interpretation of the constitution.

    “Unfortunately the Senate does not have the legal capacity or locus to go it alone.  By Supreme Court (Additional original jurisdiction) Act 2002,

    Quoting  section 20 cap  424 law of the federation of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended,  the lawmaker said.

    Read also: Buhari to Imo voters on guber contest: vote your choice

    “The National Assembly can only institute such an action after a resolution by both Houses so to do.

    “I look forward to the courts interpretation but first we must comply with the law. In the absence of such a resolution the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction.

    Recall that Senate on Monday has approached the Supreme Court to determine if President Muhammad Buhari usurped the powers of the Senate in suspending the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    However, APC Senator had said on Monday that there’s no time the Senate met and resolved that it should approach the Supreme Court for an interpretstion on the issue of the suspension of the suspended CJN.

  • Onnoghen suspension: Senate heads for Supreme Court

    The Senate on Monday filed a case at the Supreme Court seeking the apex court’s interpretation on whether President Muhammadu Buhari acted within the provision of the constitution in his suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    The Senate is also asking the court to determine whether the action of the President does not amount to usurpation of the powers of the Senate as provided for in Section 292 of the constitution.

    Read Also; Acting CJN leads panel at Supreme Court sitting

    A statement by the Special Adviser (Media and Publicity) to the Senate President, Yusuph Olaniyonu, said that following the filing of the case, the matter of the suspension of the CJN which is the main issue for which the Senate had planned to reconvene today, has become subjudiced.

    “Therefore, in line with the standing rules of the Senate not to debate issues that are already pending before the court, the reconvening of the Senate on Tuesday has been put off,” Olaniyonu said.

  • Supreme Court refuses to hear 14 pre-election cases

    THE Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear about 14 pre-election appeals on the grounds that they were caught by the amendment to Section 285 of the Constitution (aka 4th Alteration Act Number 21 of 2017), which came into effect on June 7, 2018.

    The amendment to Section 285 of the Constitution required the trial court to determine pre-election cases with 180 days and gives the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court 60 days each to determine such cases. It also provides that such appeals are filed with 14 days of the delivery of the judgment to be appealed.

    In the about 14 different rulings yesterday, two panels of the Supreme Court, headed by Justices Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed and Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, asked the appellant lawyers, including Alex Iziyon (SAN), to withdraw their appeals.

    The court proceeded to strike out each of the appeals and refrained from making any consequential order. It said, since the appeals were caught by the alteration, the court no longer has jurisdiction to act on them or look into them, except striking them out of its list of case.

    The court said the effect of the 4th Alteration Act Number 21 was that all pre-election appeals that were not determined within the stipulated 60 days have become spent (no longer valid).

    The two panels that sat were assigned to conduct “special court sitting” to clear the court’s list of all pending pre-election appeals relating to the 2015 elections that were still pending before the court.

    Justice Tanko Mohammed, who headed the first panel, explained that the Supreme Court had, in its judgments on January 18, this year, in two pre-election appeals, dealt with all issues and questions relating to the 4th Alteration Act and when it became effective.

    He said the judgments, which were in appeals: SC/307/2018 and SC/308/2018 formed the position of the court in all pre-election appeals and the question as regard when the amendment took effect.

    Justice Tanko Mohammed said, as it was the position of the court in the two judgments delivered last Friday, the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear any pre-election appeal that has stayed unheard at the expiration of the constitutional stipulated 60 days.

    On whether the 4th Alteration Act, which was assented to by the President on June 7, 2018, could have retrospective effect, Justice Tanko Mohammed said the new law, being a procedural law, assumes immediate effect.

    Justice Rhodes-Vivour also echoed the position, when he presided over the second panel.

    On what happens to the decisions of the courts, which formed the subject of the appeals, Justice Rhodes-Vivour said the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

    He added: “We do not have the power to pronounce on what happen at the lower courts since we lacked the jurisdiction to hear your appeal.”

    Almost all lawyers to the appellants in the appeals expressed discomfort about the court’s position. They all also said they have not read the court’s judgments in SC/307/2018 and SC/308/2028, which the Supreme Court said contains its position and the current position of the law on the issue.

    Lazarus Undi, who appeared for an appellant, Benjamin B. Nungwa, in the appeal marked: SC/112/2018, was particularly unhappy about the court’s position.

    He said his case was different because his client had anticipated the effect of the new amendment, filed the appeal with 14 days and wrote to the court’s registrar that the appeals falls among cases that must be decided within 60 days.

    Read also: Experts seek truly ‘independent’ electoral umpire

    He said the delay in determining the appeal with the 60 days was on the part of the court and not the appellant.

    Izinyon (SAN), who represented the appellant in one of the appeals that was struck out, hailed the court for “taking the bull by the horn in dealing with that issue (as it relates to the effect of the 4th Alteration Act on pre-election cases filed before it was assented to) at once”.

    He noted that the court’s position may affect some litigants and lawyers negatively, but expressed optimism that it would benefit all in the long run.

    Some of the affected appeals included the one by Senator Atai Ali Aidoko against Air Marshal Isaac Alfa in relation to the dispute over who was the actual candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2015 election in Kogi East.

    The court also struck out a similar appeal filed in the name of the PDP against the Court of Appeal judgment, which upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, upholding Alfa as the actual candidate of the party.

    Also affected was the appeal by Senator Umaru Dahiru and another against All Progressives Congress (APC) and others, in which the appellant is challenging the candidacy of Sokoto State Governor Waziri Tambuwal in the 2015 election.

    The court also struck out the appeal filed by Wahab Abiodun and four others against Senator Monsurat Jumoke Aduke Sunmonu and another.

    Other appeals struck out are a suit filed by Sir Friday Nwanozia Nwosu against PDP and three others; Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and another against Augustine N. Ngo and others and Benjamine B. Nungwa and APC against Joseph Hemen Boko and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Also struck out are suit by Ikenna Cyprian Uzokwelu against PDP and suit by Anthony Itayi and another against Alhaji Abubakar Atiku Bagudu and two others.