akinsadeez:



Bro, judgment is not retrospective. Whatever the collusion between him and inec, His inec certificate only became fraudulent in the eyes of the law the moment it was declared so by the court and not a minute before. This means that until that very day that he was declared illegal, he had all the rights and privileges of a state legislator.
I didn't give an example of someone who stole a car. I gave an example of someone who bought a car at a legitimate public auction not knowing he was buying a stolen car. Yes, he can argue in court that he bought the car legitimately and was given proper certificates. The best the court can do is to tell him to return the car to the original owner. the court cannot tell him to return money he earned while using the car. Why? Because until the court declared the car to be stolen, he was driving a legitimate car.

All judicial decisions are retrospective, they decide/determine the rights and liabilities after the fact. But it is presumed the law is merely interpreted and not declared by the court.

The law is abstract and is dependent on the facts to bear substance. In the scenario, the legality of the certificate is reliant on the string of facts preceding it, the legality does not appear from the sky nor in defiance to the relevant facts. In other words, the failure to contest and win the election tainted the legitimacy of his certificate. Hence he was working in a constructive trust on behalf of the election winner, the law acknowledges the hard work and labour but it is on behalf of the beneficiary.

Good judgement,

He should make restitution because he has bin benefiting from a wrong, supreme court for once applied equity and trust concept

Execution has to be carried out immediately before he dispose off his properties and money

akinsadeez:
Salary Refund? that's weird.

I am of the opinion that the supreme court justices in this case have allowed their emotions to override their sense of law. I quite understand that they are very displeased with Inec's blatant complicity in denying the petitioner his right but they awarded 650,000 naira cost against both Inec and the respondent in this case. The salary refund is like double killing.

The salary that the man was paid was for basically for the services/functions that he rendered as a member of the state house of assembly. Now can the supreme court also order that all comments, arguments that the man proffered on the floor of the house be erased? Can they order that all the bills and motions that the man might have introduced be wiped off the record.

Oyinlola as governor of Osun state had spent almost the four years of his second term before the court declared Aregbesola as the rightfully elected governor. Imagine the court now giving an order that he should return all the salaries he earned for the three years he illegally occupied the seat. To justify that, you have to find a way of also reversing all the projects he did in those three years because he was paid for functioning as the governor.

To me, this seems like another Amaechi kinda judgment. The supreme court might be setting a dangerous precedent.

D justices emotions n sense of law are in one accord.

How can d man occupy a position he knew he opt out n had his nomination form money refunded back to him? He should have acted as a good democrat n correct d error, instead he assumed d office on d expense of d real guy who didnt opt out of d race or his 2m returned. Bros u reason am na..
D thief must refund every kobo he earned as salary n other allowances dat he obtained while in d DTHA. He is a big thief. I love d court judgement.
In d case of Oyinlola, both aspirants bought nomination forms n non opt out of d race, just some normal forms of irregularities, so no need for salary refund in such case.