Appeals in election petition

• Pages: 179-201

179

375. Where respondent states that an appeal had not been brought in proper

form and could not be entertained.

“There is a preliminary point to mention first, which was raised on the respondent’s

behalf when this appeal first came on for hearing. It was that the appeal had not

been brought in proper form and could not be entertained. It was based on the fact

that no rules have been made and no forms provided for a further appeal from a

decision of a High Court on an appeal from a Magistrate. We have already held in

Nwobiala v. Inspector-General of Police, F.S.C. 235/1960 that the point is without

substance.” - Per Bairamian, F.J. in Shehu v. Ogedengbe Suit No. F.S.C. 101/1960;

(1960) 1 N.S.C.C. 189 at 190.

(19) APPEALS IN ELECTION PETITION

376. Bindingness of Court of Appeal decision.

“This is a Constitutional Court which by virtue of section 86(1) and (3) of Decree No.

36 of 1998 is the final Court in hearing of appeals on election matters - for this

transition period in the year 1999. It had decided in four previous petition appeal that

rules of Court are meant to be strictly obeyed and that non-compliance terminated

such appeals affected. This stand cannot-in my view be compromised having relied

on a Supreme Court decision. The Court cannot now reprobate and give a decision to

the contrary on a principle which is on all fours with its previous decision.” Per

Adekeye, J.C.A., in Ojugbele v. Lamidi (1999) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 621) 167 at 172 -

173.

377. Bindingness of decision of the Supreme Court on the Court of Appeal.

“Under the rule of stare decisis this Court is bound by the judgment of the Supreme

Court which is to be applied loyally as it does not lie in this Court to pronounce that a

judgment of the Supreme Court was given per incuriam Jalo Tsamiya v. Bauchi

Authority 1957 N.N.L.R. 71 (1957) S.C.N.L.R.; JIBOWU J.S.C., Cassel & Co.

Ltd. v. Broome 1972 1 W.L.R. 645 at 653. MR. OKUNLOYE has urged on us not to

follow Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society supra 1982 2 S.C. 145

adopted in the previous decisions of this Court yesterday and this morning because

Ikuomola v. Ige (1992) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 236) page 511 at 521 per KOLAWOLE,

J.C.A., was not cited before us and therefore not to follow our previous decisions on

the matter. as the judgment in Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society is

a judgment of the Supreme Court it is binding on this Court therefore we follow this

judgment that the rules of Court are meant to be obeyed and no favour should be

shown for non compliance and rely on our previous decisions and decline to follow

Ikuomola v. Ige as being in conflict with the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society 1982 2 S.C. 145. As a result we

follow our previous judgments as appellants did not comply with Decree 36 of 1998

and the Practice Direction of this Court that the brief of argument should be filed

simultaneously with the notice of appeal, which in our previous judgments on Monday

175 Appeals in elecion petition Paras. 375-377

180

22nd March, 23rd March and 24th March, 1999 that non compliance vitiates the

appeal we hold that the appeal is incompetent for non compliance with the Practice

Direction of this Court which Practice Direction is meant to be obeyed, and no leave

of Court was sought to file briefs out of time. The appeal is accordingly struck out

with N2,000.00 costs in favour of 1st Respondent.” Per Onalaja, J.C.A., in Ojugbele

v. Lamidi (1999) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 621) 167 at 171 - 172.

378. Bindingness of previous decisions of Court of Appeal.

“In suit CCN/1/12/99 Mrs. Grace Okewole v. Azorie Peter & Ors., the appeal

was struck out on facts on all fours with the present case and was argued by

same counsel to the parties in this present appeal before another of this Court.

Under the rule of stare decisis this Court is bound by its previous decision, the

exception is under the rules in Young v. Bristol Aeroplant Co. (1944) 1 K.B.

718. There is no ground to depart from our previous decision in CCN/1/12/99.”

Per Onalaja, J.C.A., in Apari v. Hose (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 604) 541 at 546.

379. Can appeal lie from Court of Appeal to Supreme Court in respect of

Governorship election petition matters.

(1) “Under section 246(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution above an appeal would

ordinarily lie to the Court of Appeal from that decision striking out the applicant’s

petition. Also under Section 246(3) above, the decision of the Court of Appeal

in respect of an appeal arising from an election petition as in this case, is final.

I have not the slightest doubt that the Constitution has in clear and unambiguous

language made the Court of Appeal a final Court in respect of appeals arising

from election petition as in the matter before us now.” Per Kutigi, J.S.C., in

Awuse v. Odili (2003) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 851) 116 at 151.

(2) “It is indubitable that matters of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even at

the last stage in the final Court which in the matter herein under consideration, is

the Court of Appeal. In other words, the Court of Appeal being the final apex

Court in this matter ought to be the place to raise the issue of its jurisdiction not

in this Court, it being the law that since the coming into force of the 1999

Constitution, an appeal does not lie from the Court of Appeal to this Court but it

is the Court of final resort. See Onuaguluchi v. Ndu (2001) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

712) 309. “It is therefore only in respect of the Presidential (not Governorship)

election petition that an appeal lies from the Court of Appeal to this Court. Vide

section 233(2)(e)(i) of the 1999 Constitution. See also Buhari & Ors. v. Obasanjo

& Ors. yet to be reported case No. S.C. 194/2003 delivered on 23/9/2003 by this

Court.” Per Mohammed, J.S.C., in Awuse v. Odili (2003) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

851) 116 at 155.

(3) “It is abundantly clear that the decision of the Court of Appeal in this matter is

final. This Court once handed down a decision in the case of Onuaguluchi v. Ndu

Paras. 377-379 176