MadamExcellency:


On whose prayers or appeal? The court strike out the judgment of the lower court. The legal opinion of the Judge can't be part of the judgment because it wasn't part of the appeal.

If you want to get the judgment the Judge opined, a party with locus stand has to approach the Court for that .

Toh. E no hard na. Malami go file am. Then high court go talk same thing. Appeal court go stamp am. Easy pizzy

vicdom:

Yes boss. That's just the summary. The title of the ruling is ridden with obscurity and ambiguity.

I think the ruling is in 2 parts, that of judgment and another of opinion.
The person has no right to institute the case so any judgment given to him is invalid.
However, the judges thinks the part of the law is wrong, should never have been.
The best option now is either a political appointee, political party or the AGF to challenge the NASS and get a ruling to nullify the law.
There can't be valid judgement when a case is instituted by the wrong person.

ityP:



Lol. I also used to think the dude is a Tinubu fan o. He may be or may not be, but one thing is sure, he argues politics without sentiments. I don dey notice am for long

there are so many monikers on Nairaland

I cum across some that stick for some zombie statement for pro tinubu or buhari

That's all, I no dey too get time to waste reading their lines

But I don't know why the guy was even quoting me and arguing if him too knows i support amaechi

fergie001:

Exactly....... Na The Nation nah

I was telling indispensable85 one day that this Section 84(12) get wahala. I know the Ministers and co will be the most elated to hear this news.

The judgement of the AC is unambiguous. But I think the SP will still have to say something on it. They'll end up there anyway. So the ministers can proceed with their ambitions.

Na the national assembly members mess the bill up. Lazy ass fellows......

MadamExcellency:


On whose prayers or appeal? The court strike out the judgment of the lower court. The legal opinion of the Judge can't be part of the judgment because it wasn't part of the appeal.

If you want to get the judgment the Judge opined, a party with locus stand has to approach the Court for that .

Seems we be few wey really get the ruling.
You put it short and on point. No +/-

Uzoisaga:



Don't be a daft perpetually. Is it that you don't know the provisions in that document this inglorious legal merchants that called themselves judges just set aside?
Are you not worried that democracy is in the gutters with this kind of attack on law and conscience?
The lawmakers for the first time in this Major General's regime that they stood their ground to bring some sanity to our political atmosphere by asking the political appointees to step aside if they have political ambition.
ONLY FOR THESE REPULSIVE JUDGES TO THROW THAT TO THE GUTTERS.
No wonder all of the Ministers refused to resign all along. Even the shameless CBN midget of a governor to also sit on top our national treasury, election sensitive materials and still want to contest. Soon INEC chairman will follow suit.
Yet, you see no wrong in all these and still defend your dullardino-in-chief.
I tuale 4 u

I repeat again, you are hopeless wailer. Is Buhari in charge of judiciary? Did Buhari not object to the provision and was thrown out by assembly? And if Buhari accepts the new Act without amendment, won’t you wail again that some people have been disenfranchised? What do you want exactly mr wailer?

drlateef:




What are we going to do about these wailers. Rain fall ,they wail, rain didn’t fall, they wail. What do they want

He's an IPOB man.

Lubumbashi:
This judgement has torpedoed Emefiele, Amechi, Malami, Akpabio, Ngige and other appointees who refused to resign as demanded by the electoral act and APC leadership.

Other aspirants are going to visit the APC chairman but Tinubu is the only candidate the APC chairman went to visit

Tinubu on the road to Aso Rock

Are u sure u can read

Indispensable85:
The judgement of the AC is unambiguous. But I think the SP will still have to say something on it. They'll end up there anyway. So the ministers can proceed with their ambitions.

Na the national assembly members mess the bill up. Lazy ass fellows......

I have told you to remove those people for your mind, na cash app tinx there.

Truthisunique2:
what is the fuss about the law in the first place

There is no 30 day resignation deadline to participate in a party convention

Anyday you resign is ok so long as you don't enter convention with political appointment

. The section is included to forestall public servants from using their position to influence election processes.In my opinion I want the SC to sustain its inclusion .

Nigerialabalaba:
Wow!!Malami don score home goal. NJC suppose drag dat Judge sef

How market Ngige, Amaechi, Nwajuiba and Emefiele

You either modifies or remove this comment hence, it's embarrassing you the more.

The judgment is actually the opposite of ur insinuation.

drlateef:




What are we going to do about these wailers. Rain fall ,they wail, rain didn’t fall, they wail. What do they want

Read the content of the judgement first before rushing to call him a wailer.

SWATMan:



Read the content of the judgement first before rushing to call him a wailer.

Yes I know that. And I have answered him on his wailing. Buhari has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with this judgement. Why is wailing on Buhari?

Aufbauh:


You either modifies or remove this comment hence, it's embarrassing you the more.

The judgment is actually the opposite of ur insinuation.

https://www.nairaland.com/7121366/breaking-all-ministers-political-ambitions#112726233
u be olodo. shiorr

They had in mind to touch the Electoral Act again but withdrew it some mins ago.

The @NGRSenate has suspended the presentation and consideration of a second amendment to the Electoral Act, 2022 which was listed on its Order Paper for First and Second Readings.

indispensable85

Mynd44:

The judgment is not very clear

The judgement still upheld the fact that that section of the constitution is unconstitutional. All the court of Appeal did was to address the circumstances surrounding the initial judgement.

In summary, Malami still won.

Nigerialabalaba:
Wow!!Malami don score home goal. NJC suppose drag dat Judge sef

How market Ngige, Amaechi, Nwajuiba and Emefiele

Read clearly and gradually the last sentence of the judgement, then you will no that even they didn't, resigned, the electoral act have no effect on them since the constitution supercede the electoral act

Odidigboigbo:
Read clearly and gradually the last sentence of the judgement, then you will no that even they didn't, resigned, the electoral act have no effect on them since the constitution supercede the electoral act

na u no get am. dey have been sacked since d day appeal court don stay action of d fhc. any document or contract dem sign for FG na null and void.

fergie001:
They had in mind to touch the Electoral Act again but withdrew it some mins ago.




indispensable85

Hahahahahahahaha..... chaiiiiiiiiiii

Tinubu will be president of Western and northern Nigeria made up of hausa and fulani. I hope you can say amen to this as I give big AMEN for Jonathan to be president of Biafra. Brainwashed dumb skull!

uote author=Moferere post=112723108]

Jonathan will be the president of Biafra Republic.


Nansense [/quote]

drlateef:




What are we going to do about these wailers. Rain fall ,they wail, rain didn’t fall, they wail. What do they want

They want snow.

You politicians should allow this section 84 (12) of the electoral act to rest

Consiglieri:
So if the correct person (someone with locus standi or whatever) brings a new suit, Malami & co still have a chance

You just made yourself known as one of those who doesn't read to the end but would rush to comment.
The last statement of the appeal court ruling attended to your question. Had you read to the end, you wouldn't have asked it in the first place.

OlujobaSamuel:

I think the ruling is in 2 parts, that of judgment and another of opinion.

The person has no right to institute the case so any judgment given to him is invalid.

However, the judges thinks the part of the law is wrong, should never have been.

The best option now is either a political appointee, political party or the AGF to challenge the NASS and get a ruling to nullify the law.
There can't be valid judgement when a case is instituted by the wrong person.

I will prefer to go slightly different.

The Higher Courts have always admonished lower Courts should take locus standi as a preliminary issue and yet still deal with the merits of the case.

So, for the lower Court, the locus standi issues should be taken distinct from the merits of the case. What it means is that....the Court of first instance (as in this case) cannot just throw out issues on locus standi without dealing with the merits or other grounds of the case.

So, none of these is an opinion, the appeal was just allowed in parts. The rest is left for the final Court to decide.


duwdu

MadamExcellency:


On whose prayers or appeal? The court strike out the judgment of the lower court. The legal opinion of the Judge can't be part of the judgment because it wasn't part of the appeal.

If you want to get the judgment the Judge opined, a party with locus stand has to approach the Court for that .

This is well reasoned, IMHO. Thanks.

@fergie001, can you please give your own view on the above quoted post, if not already? Thanks for your own posts as well on the subject judgement.

--------
P34c3

ityP:



It's clear

Ok, I went back to read the full judgement.

fergie001:

I will prefer to go slightly different.

The Higher Courts have always admonished lower Courts should take locus standi as a preliminary issue and yet still deal with the merits of the case.

So, for the lower Court, the locus standi issues should be taken distinct from the merits of the case. What it means is that....the Court of first instance (as in this case) cannot just throw out issues on locus standi without dealing with the merits or other grounds of the case.

So, none of these is an opinion, the appeal was just allowed in parts. The rest is left for the final Court to decide.


duwdu Sir.....I have.

Locus standi is one of the thresholds of instituting a suit. It is one of the fulcrums for instituting an action in the Nigerian courts. Locus standi affects the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, can be raised at any time in the proceedings or on appeal. If a plaintiff does not have locus standi to institute an action, the court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the case of A.G. FED V. A.G. LAGOS STATE (2017) 8 NWLR (PT 1566) 20 AT 55 PARA D, the Supreme Court held that the question whether a plaintiff has locus standi to bring an action in the first place raises an issue of jurisdiction. See also the case of LIBA V. KOKO (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1576) 335 AT 355-356) PARAS H-C, where the court held that when a plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. This is because the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The correct position of the law therefore is that where a plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain his action, the finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and denies its jurisdiction to determine the action”.

That quote is two of supreme court rulings on such. If it has no merit on the case, people will use it to abuse privileges.

Malori:
Buhari's inglorious regime is a threat to our democracy

Mumurist please keep quiet, if you have nothing of value to add, ordinary voters card you cannot produce on demand.

OlujobaSamuel:
That quote is two of supreme court rulings on such. If it has no merit on the case, people will use it to abuse privileges.

I will quote Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004:

The Court of Appeal may, from time to time, make any order necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the appeal and may amend any defect or error in the record of appeal, and may direct the Court below to inquire into and certify its findings on any question which the Court of Appeal thinks fit to determine before final judgment in the appeal, and may make an interim order or grant any injunction which the Court below is authorised to make or grant and may direct any necessary inquires or accounts to be made or taken, and, generally shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as a Court of first instance and may re-hear the case in whole or in part or ..............

Conditions have been set as;

(a) that the lower Court or the trial Court must have legal power to adjudicate in the matter before the appellate Court can entertain it;

(b) that the real issue raised by the claim of the appellant at the lower Court or trial Court must be seen to be capable of being distilled from the grounds of appeal;

[c) that all necessary materials must be available to the Court for consideration;

(d) that the need for expeditious disposal of the case or suit to meet the ends of justice must be apparent on the face of the materials presented; and,

(e) that the injustice or hardship will follow if the case is remitted to the Court below must be clearly manifest.

AG of Kwara v Lawal (SC. 2017)

Were these conditions met?

It is normal practice that Courts of first instance (except otherwise by interlocutory appeal) exhaust judgement in both the preliminary objection and substantive matter so as to save the Court's time if the appeal on jurisdiction is/was to go the other way. (Babalola v AGF).


I had to take time to read the case you cited:
In AGF v AG Lagos, this is different. Here, the case was on the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. What I mean is that the case didn't go through the High Court and then Appeal Court but went directly to the Supreme Court, hence the Supreme Court was acting as both a Court of first instance and as the higher/highest Court.

duwdu

You are correct that the case might become academic now.

@fergie001;

Thanks for responding.

At this point, I think I'll reason more with the last submission with references, as posted by @OlojubaSamuel, though.

BTW, while I was focused mainly on this thread, I hadn't realized a more late development — the reported directive by the President that his cabinet members interested in vying during the ongoing political races must soon resign from the cabinet — has rendered some of the issued discussed here, politically mute.

As a habit, I enjoy reading sound legal arguments. So I'll sure look forward to more postings I consider worthwhile on this and other topics, moving forward.

Good luck, everyone!

Update: I see there's been further posts on the issue here, so my interest on you guys' posts, continues.

--------
P34c3

fergie001:


I will quote Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004:

The Court of Appeal may, from time to time, make any order necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the appeal and may amend any defect or error in the record of appeal, and may direct the Court below to inquire into and certify its findings on any question which the Court of Appeal thinks fit to determine before final judgment in the appeal, and may make an interim order or grant any injunction which the Court below is authorised to make or grant and may direct any necessary inquires or accounts to be made or taken, and, generally shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as a Court of first instance and may re-hear the case in whole or in part or ..............

Conditions have been set as;

(a) that the lower Court or the trial Court must have legal power to adjudicate in the matter before the appellate Court can entertain it;

(b) that the real issue raised by the claim of the appellant at the lower Court or trial Court must be seen to be capable of being distilled from the grounds of appeal;

[c) that all necessary materials must be available to the Court for consideration;

(d) that the need for expeditious disposal of the case or suit to meet the ends of justice must be apparent on the face of the materials presented; and,

(e) that the injustice or hardship will follow if the case is remitted to the Court below must be clearly manifest.

AG of Kwara v Lawal (SC. 2017)

Were these conditions met?

It is normal practice that Courts of first instance exhaust judgement in both the preliminary objection and substantive matter so as to save the Court's time if the appeal on jurisdiction is/was to go the other way. (Babalola v AGF).


I had to take time to read the case you cited:
In AGF v AG Lagos, this is different. Here, the case was on the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. What I mean is that the case didn't go through the High Court and then Appeal Court but went directly to the Supreme Court, hence the Supreme Court was acting as both a Court of first instance and as the higher/highest Court.

Let's wait and see the effect of the ruling in few days time.
Will those affected go back to FHC to reinstitute the case or will they hold on to the CoA ruling to justify their stance??
Let's wait and see

OlujobaSamuel:

Let's wait and see the effect of the ruling in few days time.
Will those affected go back to FHC to reinstitute the case or will they hold on to the CoA ruling to justify their stance??
Let's wait and see

It will go to the SC if the PDP wants it to go up. It cannot go to the FHC.