RT. HON. ROTIMI CHIBUIKE AMAECHI V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION 2009

RT. HON. ROTIMI CHIBUIKE AMAECHI V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

(2009) LCN/3662(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tuesday, November 3, 2009


Case Number: SC. 252/2007

 

JUSTICES:

ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MAHMUD MOHAMMED , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

FRANCIS FEDEDO TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BETWEEN

APPELLANTS

RT. HON. ROTIMI CHIBUIKE AMAECHI

AND

RESPONDENTS

RT. HON. ROTIMI CHIBUIKE AMAECHI

COGENT AND VERIFIABLE REASONS UNDER SECTION 35(2) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2006

‘The cogent and verifiable reasons contemplated under section 34(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006, are cogent and verifiable reasons given by the political party applicant wishing to effect any change of candidate in its application to INEC, specified in that section of the Act. Therefore any reason or reasons plucked out or extracted from any source outside the letter or application for the substitution of candidate by the respondents or the court below after 2nd February, 2007, is certainly not a reason within the contemplation or requirement of section 34(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006.’ Per Mohammed, JSC.

(Delivered by A.I. Katsina- Alu, JSC)

This application is plainly misguided and ill-advised. However it affords an opportunity to this court to warn counsel to desist from bringing frivolous applications before this court.

By the judgment we gave on 25/10/07 we considered all the issues relevant to a fair determination of this matter. If a court of law has jurisdiction to hear a matter that court has jurisdiction to go right or wrong. The sum total of counsels application is that this court was wrong. If indeed we were wrong that is a matter to be agitated in another case. This application is an abuse of the process of the court. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be costs of =N= 100,000.00 in favour of the Appellant/Respondent.

 

A.I. KATSINA- ALU

 

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

 

RULING

 

(Delivered by G .A. Oguntade, JSC)

 

The Court has the jurisdiction to decide appeals before it rightly or wrongly where a decision was wrongly made, counsel can in subsequent cases ask that the decision be revisited. This application is an abuse of the process of court. It is struck out with costs as stated in the lead ruling.

 

G .A. Oguntade

 

Justice, Supreme Court

RULING

 

(Delivered by O.O. Adekeye, JSC)

 

After gleaning through the application filed on 16/1 0/2009 and hearing counsel, this court cannot but corne to the inevitable conclusion that the application is utterly misconceived. As far as that judgment is concerned, this court is now functus officio. If the applicant knows another avenue of appeal, he has the right to take the opportunity. Mr. Nwaiwu does not ask for costs. Application is struck out with Nl00,000.00 costs.

 

O.O. Adekeye

 

Justice, Supreme Court

 

L.O. Fagbemi, SAN, Awa Kalu, SAN, O.I. Olorundare, SAN, S.R. Dappa Ado,S.O. Sanni, F.A. Esu, H.O. Afolabi, F. Edema, K.O. Fagbemi, A.F. Yusuf, Akeem Umoru, Adamson Adeboro, J.U. Eke, T. Owoh for the Appellant/Applicant.

 

Amaechi Nwaiwu, SAN, M.B. Adoke, SAN with Musdapher K.D., Ben Atetan, Ifeanyi Okechukwu, Ngozi Udokwu (Miss) for the 1st Respondent.

 

  1. Onyekwere, Esq. in person as applicant (co-respondent).

 

J.C. Ezike, C.O. Ejezie, F.K. Amachree, T.U: Nrnah, R.O. Yusuf, K.S. Ezenro, A.C. Ozioko, C.P. Oli, S.1. Bamgbose (Mrs.), N.N. Shaltha (Miss), M. Atoyebi for 3rd Respondent.

 

 

 

RULING

 

(DELIVERED BY I. T. MUHAMMAD, JSC)

 

The application is misguided and ill-advised. The application is frivolous. There is no need to call on any of the respondents counsel to respond. The application is an abuse of the courts process and is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at N 100,000.00 to the respondent/appellant.

 

I.T. MUHAMMAD,

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

 

Counsel:

 

  1. O. Fagbemi, SAN with him; Awa Kalu, SAN; O. I. Olorundare, SAN; S. R. Dappa-Ado; S. O. Sanni; F. A. Esu; H. O. Afolabi; F. Edema; K. O. Fagbemi; A. F. Yusuf; Akeem Umoru; Adamson Adeboro; T. Owhor and J. U. Eke for the Appellant/Applicant.

 

  1. C. Ezike with him; C. O. Ezezie; F. K. Amachree; T. U. Nmah; K. S. Elenwo, K. Onyekwere Esq. for the Applicant/Co-Respondent.

 

Amachi Nwawu SAN; Ben Atetan Ifeanyi Okechukwu and Ngozi Udokwu (Miss.) for the 1st Respondent.

 

  1. O. Yusuf with him; A. C. Ozioro; C. P. Oli; S. I. Bamgbose (Mrs.); N. N. Shaltha (Miss.) and O. M. Atoyebi for the 3rd Respondent.

 

 

 

(Delivered By W. S. N. Onnoghen, JSC)

 

The application is misconceived as we cannot sit on appeal over our own judgment being a final court in the land. I therefore, agree with the lead ruling of KATSINA-ALU, JSC, presiding that the application be dismissed with Nl00, 000.00 (one hundred thousand naira) costs to the appellant/respondent.

 

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN,

 

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

L.O fagbemi, Esq, SAN for the appellant with him are Messrs Awa Kalu, San; O. I OLORUNDARE, SAN; S. a Sanni; F. A Esu; H. a Afolabi; F. Edema; K.O Fagbemi; A. F Yusuf; Akeem Umoru; Adamson Adeboro; Musdapher K. D; J. U Eke.

 

  1. C Ezike, Esq with C. O Ejezie; F. K Amachree; T. U Nmah; K. S Elewwo for the applicant.

 

Chief Amaechi Nwaiwu, SAN with M. B Adoke, SAN; Musdapher K D; Ben Atetan; Ifeanyi Okechukwu and Udokwu Ngozi (Miss) for 1st Respondent.

 

  1. O Yusuf, Esq for the 3rd respondents with him are Messrs A. C Ozioko; C. P. 01; S. I Bamgbose (Miss); N. N Shattha (Miss) and O. M Ayoyebi; K Onyekwere, Esq in person for applicant to join as co-respondent.

 

 

 

(DELIVERED BY MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC.)

 

The application dated 16/1 0/2009 and Filed in this Court the same day is rather frivolous. The application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be N100,000.00 costs to the Appellant/Respondent.

 

MAHMUD MOHAMMED,

 

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

Leave a Reply

Close Menu
×
×

Cart