OLUSEGUN MICHAEL ABRAHAM v. OLUWAROTIMI ODUNAYO AKEREDOLU & ORS
(2018) LCN/4694(SC)
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Friday, the 23rd day of March, 2018
SC.700/2017
RATIO
ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS TO ACADEMIC ISSUES OR EXERCISE
It is trite law that Courts do not expend valuable judicial time and energy on academic issues or exercise. See Daniel v. INEC (2015) LPELR – 24566 (SC), K. R. K. Holdings Nig. Ltd v First Bank Nig. Ltd & Anor (2016) LPELR – 41463 (SC), Trade Bank Plc v Benilux Nig. Ltd (2003) 5 SC P.1. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
JUSTICES
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
AND
- OLUWAROTIMI ODUNAYO AKEREDOLU
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
3. CHIEF JOHN ODIGIE OYEGUN
4. INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION [INEC] Respondent(s)
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): I have just delivered judgment in respect of the main appeal No.SC.698/2017 between the same parties in this Cross-Appeal. The sole issue for determination in the cross-appeal is as stated hereunder:-
“Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the 1st Cross Respondent’s Grounds of Appeal are grounds of law for which no leave is required for appeal.”
However, having dismissed the appeal of the Appellant in the main appeal (who is the 1st Cross-Respondent in this Cross appeal) and the decision in the main appeal being in favour of the 1st Respondent (now cross-appellant in the cross appeal), the sole issue in the cross appeal becomes academic and of no utilitarian benefit to the cross-appellant. It is trite law that Courts do not expend valuable judicial time and energy on academic issues or exercise. See Daniel v. INEC (2015) LPELR – 24566 (SC), K. R. K. Holdings Nig. Ltd v First Bank Nig. Ltd & Anor (2016) LPELR 41463 (SC), Trade Bank Plc v Benilux Nig. Ltd (2003) 5 SC P.1.
In consequence thereof, I shall resist the temptation of engaging in an academic
1
exercise in this cross-appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.: I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother Okoro, JSC. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. I, too, dismiss the appeal.
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother Inyang Okoro, JSC just delivered. I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion that the cross appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. Having dismissed the main appeal, there is no need to further consider the cross-appeal. It will amount to wasting of the precious judicial time of the Court. I too will dismiss the cross appeal.
Cross-appeal dismissed.
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.: I agree with my learned brother, Okoro JSC that this Cross-appeal has become unnecessary with the determination of the main appeal No.SC.698/2017 in favour of the 1st Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Accordingly the Cross- appeal is dismissed.
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.: I
2
agree.
3
Appearances:
Prof. J. O. Amupitan, SAN with him, K. O. Ijatuyi Esq, Y. U. Opara Esq, J. J. Usman Esq, and O. A. Akinola Esq
For Appellant(s)
Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN with him, Olumide Olujinmi, Esq. Akinsola Olujinmi, Esq Oluwole Ilori, Esq and Abayomi Abdulwahab Esq for the 1st Cross Respondent.
Murtala Abdulrasheed Esq for 2nd and 3rd Cross-Respondents.
Bashir M. Abubakar Esq for 4th Cross Respondent.
For Respondent(s)
Appearances
Prof. J. O. Amupitan, SAN with him, K. O. Ijatuyi Esq, Y. U. Opara Esq, J. J. Usman Esq, and O. A. Akinola EsqFor Appellant
AND
Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN with him, Olumide Olujinmi, Esq. Akinsola Olujinmi, Esq Oluwole Ilori, Esq and Abayomi Abdulwahab Esq for the 1st Cross – Respondent.
Murtala Abdulrasheed Esq for 2nd and 3rd Cross-Respondents.
Bashir M. Abubakar Esq for 4th Cross Respondent.For Respondent
