OKOTERE & ORS v. GWAGWA & ORS
(2022)LCN/5075(SC)
In The Supreme Court
On Thursday, February 10, 2022
SC.1165/2021
Before Our Lordships:
Musa Dattijo Muhammad Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chima Centus Nweze Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
1. MRS. STELLA OKOTERE 2. DR. JAMES LALU 3. CHIEF DAVID LYON 4. SEN. ABBA ALI 5. PROF. TAHIR MAMMAN 6. BARR. ISMAIL AHMED 7. SEN. JOHN JAMES AKPANUDOEDEHE APPELANT(S)
And
1. HON. SULEIMAN ALHASSAN GWAGWA 2. HON. MURTALA USMAN KARSHI 3. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) 4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 6. THE STATE SECURITY SERVICES 7. GOVERNOR MAI MALA BUNI 8. GBENGA ISIAKA OYEBOLA 9. ALH. ABUBAKAR SANI BELLO 10. SEN. ABUBAKAR YUSUF 11. SEN. KEN NNAMANI 12. HON. AKINYEMI OLAIDE RESPONDENT(S)
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal No. SC/CV/1165/2021 was commenced on 15-12-2021 when the appellants herein filed a notice of appeal against the part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 3-12-2021 in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/766/2021 striking out the cross-appeal for having become academic.
The cross appeal to the Court of Appeal was against the judgment of the trial High Court in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1052/2021 delivered on 27-9-2021 for failure to consider and decide the cross appellant’s application in Motion No. M/4239/2021 to set aside the ex-parte order made by the trial Court on 22-6-2021 abridging the time within which the cross appellants may file their counter affidavits in opposition to the originating summons. The trial Court in its judgment had upheld the objection that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was statute barred, having been filed after 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, act or decision complained about contrary to Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution and therefore felt there was no need deciding a procedural point in a suit it had adjudged statute barred.
The Court of Appeal held concerning the cross appeal that it had become academic in the light of its decisions on the preliminary objections against the appeal and cross appeal before it.
The decision of this Court in SC/CV/1166/2021 setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeal that Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1052/2021 is not statute barred and restoring the judgment of the trial Court that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was statute barred, having been filed after 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, act or decision complained about contrary to Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, has rendered the determination of this Appeal No. SC/CV/1165/2021 unnecessary and academic. No useful purpose would be served determining this appeal.
As it is, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to determine an appeal that has become academic. The issues raised for determination therein have become like the theoretical questions of the legendary Greek orator Demosthenes who reputedly addressed the sea when he had no human audience. Determining them would be a vain and sterile engagement. By virtue of Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution the judicial powers of a Court cannot extend to determination of such questions.
In the light of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby struck out. No order of costs.
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.: I read in advance the lead judgment in this appeal, prepared and delivered by my learned brother EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC. I adopt same as mine in striking out the incompetent appeal. I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment also.
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.: My Lord, Emmanuel A. Agim, JSC, obliged me with the draft of the leading judgment just delivered. I agree with His Lordship that this appeal is academic.
It is for these, and the more elaborate reasons in the leading judgment, that I too hereby strike out the appeal. No order of costs.
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.: I have read the judgment just delivered by my learned brother EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is an academic exercise in view of the decision in the sister appeal SC/CV/1166/2021 which set aside the decision of the Court below. This Court is notvested with powers to exercise jurisdiction to determine academic and sterile issues. There are no more live issues to determine in this appeal. The appeal is struck out. No order as to costs.
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.: My Lord, AGIM, JSC granted me the privilege of reading before now, the leading Judgment prepared and rendered in this appeal. I agree that this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction since the appeal has become academic, it therefore deserves to be struck out. I join my Lord in striking the appeal out, I also abide by all consequential orders, including the order on costs.
Appearances:
Ibrahim K. Bawa, SAN, with him, Dr. M.N. Mohammed, SAN, Ahmed Mohammed Jega, Monsuni Lawal, Esq. and Bahiru M. Sallau, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Hassan M. Liman, SAN, Mohammed N. Katu, SAN, Abdulhamid Mohammed, SAN, with them, Amanzi F. Amanzi and Aliyu Hassan, Esq.For Respondent(s)