Johnnyessence:
Infact the supreme court of justice will first of all rule on the preliminary objection challenging the suit.

Now you get my point. If the SC overrules the preliminary objection is when the substantive appeal gets a look over. Where the SC upholds the preliminary objection that’s all there is to it. The Court Of Appeal decision is by necessary implication the position at law because there can be no lacunae i.e. vacuum. It’s all up to the SC.

zoedew:


What you need to understand is that the Court these days are enjoined to embody the ruling on the preliminary objection in the judgment. It does not necessarily mean the preliminary objection has been dismissed. It is because the interest of justice is paramount. The court will do substantial justice not technical justice. However what you refer to as “technical issues like routine documentation” will be excused only where they are procedural in nature and not countenanced where they have to do with substantive law. My focus is not on misstatement of parties- small do that is! The real issue is the signature on the Notice Of Appeal and the name which refers to two different people. The law is that an action in court - in this instance an appeal- is competent only when it is brought in the manner prescribed by law: it MUST be signed by a legal practitioner or the party litigating. Thus a Notice Of Appeal like the one before the SC and under discussion will be held to be incompetent because what purports to be the signature belongs to two different people not one as required by the law - it need not be a signature- a name will suffice but that is not the case here. I can wager that they will not waste precious judicial time considering the substantive appeal because when all is said and done there is really none before the SC on the matter. Having so said it is conceded that the law is not 1+1=2. Rather, it lies in the breast of the noble law Lords of the SC. We hopefully should learn some more law on July the 5th, 2019!

supreme court judges will start their ruling from the tribunal judgement till appeal court judgement. please let's be patient with the supreme court judges. you can't speak for them, it's the law that will speak for them. they will follow the law of the land and electoral a t amendment too.

zoedew:


Now you get my point. If the SC overrules the preliminary objection is when the substantive appeal gets a look over. Where the SC upholds the preliminary objection that’s all there is to it. The Court Of Appeal decision is by necessary implication the position at law because there can be no lacunae i.e. vacuum. It’s all up to the SC.

yes it's over to supreme court of justice to decide on the case.

Drbabalola:
I Have Keen Interest In This Matter Because I'm Native Of Osun Who Believes In Equity, Fairness And Justice, Though I Could Appear Partisan Atimes. But I Have Never Been A Bigot And Would Never Be. With Dr Ikpeazu's Mistake Do You Think That Case Can Stand Legal Scrutiny? Are You Sure Those Judges Sincerely Accepted Ikpeazu's Apology? Who Amongst The Two Warring Sides Actually Presented Good Argument(s)? Will Supreme Court Not Throw The Appeal Away Owing To Technicalities. I Want Sincere Answers Based On What You Observed In The Procession. I Was So Busy I Couldn't Follow It. Thanks In Anticipation.

The Court these days are enjoined to embody the ruling on the preliminary objection in the judgment. It does not necessarily mean the preliminary objection has been dismissed. It is because the interest of justice is paramount. The court will do substantial justice not technical justice. However what you refer to as “technical issues like routine documentation” will be excused only where they are procedural in nature and not countenanced where they have to do with substantive law. My focus is not on misstatement of parties- small do that is! The real issue is the signature on the Notice Of Appeal and the name which refers to two different people. The law is that an action in court - in this instance an appeal- is competent only when it is brought in the manner prescribed by law: it MUST be signed by a legal practitioner or the party litigating. Thus a Notice Of Appeal like the one before the SC and under discussion will be held to be incompetent because what purports to be the signature belongs to two different people not one as required by the law - it need not be a signature- a name will suffice but that is not the case here. I can wager that they will not waste precious judicial time considering the substantive appeal because when all is said and done there is really none before the SC on the matter. Having so said it is conceded that the law is not 1+1=2. Rather, it lies in the breast of the noble law Lords of the SC. We hopefully should learn some more law on July the 5th, 2019!

Johnnyessence:
yes it's over to supreme court of justice to decide on the case.

Another dimension to the case is that the happenings therein and its eventual outcome could disclose negligence on the part of Counsel. In this part of the world the Bar does not take such seriously. My primary school teacher told me that too many cooks spoil the broth! #toomuchmoney

zoedew:


What you need to understand is that the Court these days are enjoined to embody the ruling on the preliminary objection in the judgment. It does not necessarily mean the preliminary objection has been dismissed. It is because the interest of justice is paramount. The court will do substantial justice not technical justice. However what you refer to as “technical issues like routine documentation” will be excused only where they are procedural in nature and not countenanced where they have to do with substantive law. My focus is not on misstatement of parties- small do that is! The real issue is the signature on the Notice Of Appeal and the name which refers to two different people. The law is that an action in court - in this instance an appeal- is competent only when it is brought in the manner prescribed by law: it MUST be signed by a legal practitioner or the party litigating. Thus a Notice Of Appeal like the one before the SC and under discussion will be held to be incompetent because what purports to be the signature belongs to two different people not one as required by the law - it need not be a signature- a name will suffice but that is not the case here. I can wager that they will not waste precious judicial time considering the substantive appeal because when all is said and done there is really none before the SC on the matter. Having so said it is conceded that the law is not 1+1=2. Rather, it lies in the breast of the noble law Lords of the SC. We hopefully should learn some more law on July the 5th, 2019!

please don't speak for the supreme court OK. let the supreme court judges decide on the case. now they are 7 panel members now. what the people want is justice on the case.

Jchi9876:


You sabi lie ooo .we dey hear when you were supporting pastor Iyamu for Edo you supported eyitayo or so in ondo and sifia pains in ekiti

You supported saraki in kwara and was pasting Atiku shit here up and down

as in that guy ehn , just pray that such people should not support you cox I fc they do , Na failure ooo

zoedew:


Another dimension to the case is that the happenings therein and its eventual outcome could disclose negligence on the part of Counsel. In this part of the world the Bar does not take such seriously. My primary school teacher told me that too many cooks spoil the broth! #toomuchmoney

let the supreme court judges decide on the case.

It must however be note that as provided by section 139 (1) of
the Act, “an election shall not be liable to be nullified/
invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of
this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the
election was conducted substantially in accordance with the
principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not
affect substantially the result of the election.” A plain
interpretation of the actual import of section 39 (1) of the
Electoral Act (as amended) is, in my humble opinion, that an
Election Tribunal clearly possesses the power to decide that:
1. Although the conduct of an election is not wholly/entirely
in compliance with the Electoral Act, yet, the election is
sufficiently valid to produce a winner on grounds that the
conduct of the election has substantially complied with
the Act. In other words, the Tribunal is entitled to decide
that a portion of the election IS in compliance while the
other portion IS NOT. Accordingly, where the Tribunal
holds that the portion that is in compliance with the
Electoral Act is substantial to produce a winner, the
Tribunal can validly declare as winner, the personwith
majority of the votes cast in the portion in which the
Tribunal finds that the election was validly conducted. For
this purpose, where the Tribunal in exercise of its powers
under section 139(1) finds that a particular portion of the
election or its conduct IS NOT in compliance with the
Electoral Act, the Tribunal has the power to nullify the
affected portion and thereafter determine whether the
other portion, the SAVED, un-nullified portion, is
sufficiently substantial to ground a declaration that a
person has won the election. I think, respectfully, this is
what the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal did
on 22 March 2019 when it foundin its wisdom (rightly or
wrongly) that a certain portion of the conduct of the
gubernatorial election in Osun State (specifically, the re-
run portion of the election) had violated the law and as
such was liable to be nullified with the consequence that
all votes cast in the affected portion/areas be deducted
from the total votes cast while the other portion (the
areas not adversely affected) was now relied upon to
determine the winner of the election. It is therefore clear,
I submit, that an Election Tribunal possesses the power to
cancel or deduct the votes cast in an election conducted
in any area in violation of the Electoral Act. However,
whether the Tribunal properly applied the powers to
deduct votes in a cancelled area and whether the
tribunal’s reasons for cancelling elections conducted in
the area it cancelled is now a matter which depends of
the facts of this case, and in respect of which the
appellate Courts are in the best position resolve.
2. Even though the tribunal found that a portion of the
areas/ conduct of the election did not comply with the
provisions of the Electoral Act, and was therefore
nullified, such nullified area and votes cast within the
area which were deducted from the total votes cast as a
result of such non-compliance “did not substantially
affect the result of the election.” Accordingly, where the
‘illegal” votes cancelled/deducted as a result of partial
non-compliance is not sufficient to “substantially
adversely affect the result of the election, the tribunal is
entitled to declare any person winner based on the un-
affected, the un-cancelled, votes. Please, note that
whenever the tribunal cancels and deducts the votes cast
in elections conducted in a portion of the State in breach
of the Act, the necessary implication is that the un-
canceled portion would now be deemed to be the only
valid votes for the purpose of application of section
140(3) of the Act.
Respectfully, therefore, I think section 139(1) impliedly gives
the Tribunal powers to cancel part of an election (found to be
against law) and to declare a person winner based on the un-
canceled part of the Tribunal finds that the votes secured in
the un-canceled part substantially complied with the Electoral
Act!
Further, section 140 (3) of the Act empowers the Election
Tribunal to declare as elected the candidate who scored the
highest number of valid votes cast at the election conducted
in the portion where no such cancellation as a result of
illegality happened if it finds that the votes cast in the portion
where conduct of electionsis held to have “satisfied the
requirements of the Constitution and of this Act” were
substantial enough to justify such a declaration.Besides,
section 138(1) (c) provides as a ground for an election petition
that the petitioner could be declared winner if the tribunal
finds “that the respondent was not duly elected by majority of
lawful votes cast at the election.” This is a clear indication that
the Tribunal could declare some votes unlawful and invalid,
and proceed to rely on the “lawful, valid votes” to determine
the winner.”

Johnnyessence:
please don't speak for the supreme court OK. let the supreme court judges decide on the case. now they are 7 panel members now. what the people want is justice on the case.

And justice they will get! Do please remember to hit me up on 5/7/2019!

77up:
as in that guy ehn , just pray that such people should not support you cox I fc they do , Na failure ooo

clueless hyprocrite, why are you following my comments on nairaland. it shows vividly that you are ignorant of what you are saying here. I have supported series of candidates here and they won their elections and cases in the court. God knows how many months that Apc has been ranting and playing their propanganda tactics on distinguished senator Ademola Adeleke on the eligibility case, at last he won the case in the appeal court against APC. Infact the judge even award 3m naira against APC party members that took him to court not to talk of governor seyi makinde that i have been clamoring for his governorship bid, in the end he won and now a 32 years old babcock graduate is now the 9th Assembly speaker of oyo state house of assembly. you are clueless hyprocrite here. keep it up ok.

zoedew:


And justice they will get! Do please remember to hit me up on 5/7/2019!

yes, hit me up too.

Johnnyessence:
OK I heard you. check this thenationonlineng newspaper link on the supreme court hearing : https://thenationonlineng.net/osun-oyetola-apc-inec-ask-supreme-court-to-dismiss-adelekes-appeal/ read more on page 2 here: https://thenationonlineng.net/osun-oyetola-apc-inec-ask-supreme-court-to-dismiss-adelekes-appeal/2/

Oh Thanks For That Useful Link. All I Grabbed Is That Ikpeazu Insisted That Inec Shouldn't Have Cancelled Some Results And Order Rerun While A.P.C Lawyers Were Arguing As If Election Did Hold Initially In The Polling Units Concerned. Two Conflicting Arguments. God Would Lead The Judges Aright.

Drbabalola:
Oh Thanks For That Useful Link. All I Grabbed Is That Ikpeazu Insisted That Inec Shouldn't Have Cancelled Some Results And Order Rerun While A.P.C Lawyers Were Arguing As If Election Did Hold Initially In The Polling Units Concerned. Two Conflicting Arguments. God Would Lead The Judges Aright.

Amen thanks for your reply. you can read more or consult more explanations on the electoral act amendment bill in order to clarify the appeal case of appellant and also the respondent too. thanks for your reply.

Johnnyessence:
clueless hyprocrite, why are you following my comments on nairaland. it shows vividly that you are ignorant of what you are saying here. I have supported series of candidates here and they won their elections and cases in the court. God knows how many months that Apc has been ranting and playing their propanganda tactics on distinguished senator Ademola Adeleke on the eligibility case, at last he won the case in the appeal court against APC. Infact the judge even award 3m naira against APC party members that took him to court not to talk of governor seyi makinde that i have been clamoring for his governorship bid, in the end he won and now a 32 years old babcock graduate is now the 9th Assembly speaker of oyo state house of assembly. you are clueless hyprocrite here. keep it up ok.

I swear I don't think I can ever have time to read your gibberish, you LL soon run away as usual.


Na today you go create thread still run away from it , keep giving your lots false hope

77up:
I swear I don't think I can ever have time to read your gibberish, you LL soon run away as usual.


Na today you go create thread still run away from it , keep giving your lots false hope

clueless hyprocrite can you please mention the thread i created and I run. you are clueless ignorant as expected. zombie that is seeking for nairaland attention. I won't give you here.

A good deal can earn you a brother instead of just another customer

zoedew:


As things stand presently it would amount to an overkill for anyone on the Oyetola Team to bribe SC even if that were a legitimate thing to do. Adeleke appeal is dead on arrival. If you kick another’s vehicle with a master key used by thieves you are a thief! The Notice Of Appeal in Law was not signed and as such there was no Appeal before The Supreme Court and the time to do so having lapsed and election petitions being time bound the Court Of Appeal decision stands with the Dancing Bear out in the cold!

I wasn't speaking particularly about this case, I was disputing your assertion that Supreme Court Justices don't take bribe.

zoedew:


Now you get my point. If the SC overrules the preliminary objection is when the substantive appeal gets a look over. Where the SC upholds the preliminary objection that’s all there is to it. The Court Of Appeal decision is by necessary implication the position at law because there can be no lacunae i.e. vacuum. It’s all up to the SC.

My barrister,you are too much.who are you? You are a future SAN if you are actually a lawyer.you really did justice to the suit and matter at hand objectively.please,i would like you to comment more on this forum when such legal issues arise.thank you for the legal and intellectual expose.
As for johnny,ignore him.am used to him and his limited knowledge built in childish sentiments.

Johnnyessence:
clueless hyprocrite can you please mention the thread i created and I run. you are clueless ignorant as expected. zombie that is seeking for nairaland attention. I won't give you here.

Guy,you need to give it up.i told you sometime ago that you know nothing about law,that guy xoedew really exposed and rubbished you.adeleke may have eon but the tribunal and his lawyers have made mistakes that will deny him that.
The supreme court has less than 20 judges with so much workload therefore they dont like wasting time on cases or matters.any suit before them must be 100 percent in order to make it easier for them.so when they see technical mistakes,they easily use that to throw out the cases to save themselves the stress.
Now if you take a look at all the cases tanko has handled since he became cjn,most have been decided based on technicalities.i can cite instances if you want.again olanipekun is a master at taking advantage of such errors.the case is lost

senatordave1:

My barrister,you are too much.who are you? You are a future SAN if you are actually a lawyer.you really did justice to the suit and matter at hand objectively.please,i would like you to comment more on this forum when such legal issues arise.thank you for the legal and intellectual expose.
As for johnny,ignore him.am used to him and his limited knowledge built in childish sentiments.

I find this humbling. Thanks to you Sir for the compliment!

AlphaT1:

I wasn't speaking particularly about this case, I was disputing your assertion that Supreme Court Justices don't take bribe.

Going by their oath of Office they won’t take bribes. However, old habits they say, die hard!

ABSTRUSE:


Woow! But when was the appeal filed that judgment will be delivered in less than two months?

Since May 24th.

senatordave1:

Guy,you need to give it up.i told you sometime ago that you know nothing about law,that guy xoedew really exposed and rubbished you.adeleke may have eon but the tribunal and his lawyers have made mistakes that will deny him that.
The supreme court has less than 20 judges with so much workload therefore they dont like wasting time on cases or matters.any suit before them must be 100 percent in order to make it easier for them.so when they see technical mistakes,they easily use that to throw out the cases to save themselves the stress.
Now if you take a look at all the cases tanko has handled since he became cjn,most have been decided based on technicalities.i can cite instances if you want.again olanipekun is a master at taking advantage of such errors.the case is lost

your lies and propaganda will never hold any water, you can see it vividly that I replied him very well in his questions he asked. Dr. Ikpeazu did extremely well in yesterday supreme court hearing. you can see it vividly that I posted on your fallacies that never have any point here. it was a mistake which has been effectively corrected in the court. stop ranting here OK. let the supreme court judges judge on the case.

senatordave1:

My barrister,you are too much.who are you? You are a future SAN if you are actually a lawyer.you really did justice to the suit and matter at hand objectively.please,i would like you to comment more on this forum when such legal issues arise.thank you for the legal and intellectual expose.
As for johnny,ignore him.am used to him and his limited knowledge built in childish sentiments.

when you know that your fit isn't holding any ground then you will see where you will be shaking and ask for help. so far so good, Dr. Ikpeazu has done his in addressing the appeal with the laws that backed it and also electoral act amendment backed it too. you can see it vividly that preliminary objection challenging the suit will first be ruled before other rule will follow. keep on living in your deluded state of mind. it's part of you and your party Apc.

OSUN GUBER: 10 TAKEAWAYS FROM SUPREME COURT
HEARING

By Adebiyi Adebisi
Supreme Court today spent about four hours devoted to the
long drawn battle for Osun governorship.Chairing was the
Chief Justice himself,Tanko Mohammed who alertedly
coordinated the hearing ,enforcing rules and affirming the
apex court readiness to do justice.
As much as the final judgement is scheduled for July 5th,the
public beyond political propaganda may want to peruse the
following as the takeaways from the hearing:
1. CJN'S FRANKNESS
Contrary to insinuations,the CJN demonstrated fairness,
alertness and passion for adjudication with justice as the
ultimate goal. Repeatedly,he affirmed: "We will read your briefs
twice ,thrice and even more before we write our judgement.
We will do justice". The insistence to follow substance rather
than technicalities was clearly evident.
2. COUNSELS' STRATEGIES
The counsels on both sides were at maximum alert.The
respondents' lawyers adopted the strategy of dodging the
issue, the substance of the case,opting for an exit strategy by
picking for errors in the appealant's brief. Interestingly, the only
one the counsel got on one of the four Appeals under
consideration was a secondary error which does not touch the
primary core of the appeal.The Appealant's counsels on the
other hand combined combative corrective measures before
the lord justices while maintaining the focus on the core
grounds of the appeal;
3. CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS
The CJN directed consolidation of the four appeals into two
even while allowing all issues to be mentioned and
addressed.The main appeal and the cross appeal which was a
constititional issue were adopted under dramatic setting.The
more than 30 grounds canvassed by the Appealant were thus
consolidated .The goal was to fast track the hearing and ease
the writing of final judgement;
4. UNANSWERED MAIN APPEAL
The appealant's counsel adopted the brief of the main appeal
which was seeking upturning of Appeal Court judgement and
seeking declaration of Ademola Adeleke as the governor of
Osun state.Interestingly,neither APC nor INEC filed any brief on
this. Both supported the brief filed by Gboyega Oyetola through
his counsel ,Wole Olanipekun.
5. CROSS APPEAL SHOTS
The appealant also adopted the brief for the cross appeal,
positing that on constititional ground, Senator Ademola
Adeleke should have been declared winner based on
September 22 poll results by the INEC in compliance with
Section 179. (2) of CFRN. They also Cited a Supreme Court
judgement in the case of Buhari versus Obasanjo, where the
Supreme court struck down the INEC manual on use of Card
Readers as it conflicted with the Electoral Act. The appealant
argued that any additional conditions for winning election not
known to the constitution should be struck down by the apex
court.The CJN and others took copious note during the
presentations.
6. APPEALANTS' LEGAL ERUDITION
Argument that September 22 outcome did not satisfy
constitutional requirement of election being held in all parts of
the state constituency was countered by appealant's counsel.
The cancellation of seven polling units was described as an
illegal act designed to rob the winner of September 22 victory
through the holding of another illegal rerun on the 27th;
7.WEAK DEFENCE
The Oyetola/APC team at the Supreme Court today failed to
come up with ANY CREDIBLE defense against Sen Ademola
Adeleke's solid grounds of Appeal to be declared legitimate
Governor of Osun state having satisfied the requirements of
Section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
Instead of arguing the merits of the case,the respondent went
wild with a Preliminary Objection based on an observed minor
typo at the last page of the notice of Appeal as transmitted by
the Appeal court, particularly page 4,027, where the counsels
were listed as "Counsel to the Respondents" instead of
"Counsel to the Appeallant". A very trivial and inconsequential
typo.
8. CRITICAL LEGAL NOTE
The Supreme Court ruled In JERIC NIGERIA LIMITED v. UNION
BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2000) 14 NWLR (pt.691), the Supreme
Court per KALGO JSC at page 458 that quoted in part:
"........ The error is as in my respectful view not fatal as to
render the appeal incompetent. It is also true as submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent that this court has long
moved away from sticking to technicalities as opposed, to the
determination of parties rights on merits and substantial
justice. See the State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR at 160;
Amako v. The state (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 399) 11 at 26; Akpan v.
The State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 248) 439.
"I am therefore satisfied and hereby find that the putting in of
the year *"1996 instead of “1997” in referring to the date of the
judgment of the trial court appealed against to the Court of
Appeal on the Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent, is a
mere irregularity in the circumstances and did not vitiate the
appeal or render the Court of Appeal incompetent to entertain
the appeal".*
9. THE WEAK FOCUS
The typo that respondent's counsels based their arguments on
was so inconsequential that it did not affect them in their
replies as they did not refer to it in any of their reply briefs, it
also occurred in 1 out of 4 Appeals filed by Senator Adeleke's
team of Counsels, there cannot therefore be any basis for
concern or alarm.
10. CONCLUSION
Judgement on the consolidated Appeals 553, 554 and 555 as
well as the separate cross Appeal 556 were reserved till the
5th of July, 2019.

Adebisi who was in Abuja is based at Ikoyi Lagos.

Johnnyessence:
clueless hyprocrite can you please mention the thread i created and I run. you are clueless ignorant as expected. zombie that is seeking for nairaland attention. I won't give you here.

Politics aside , I like your spirit, your loyalty, your zeal to see to the end of the matter .


But , take it easy,politics as a dirty game don't worth all these, you are exhausting your energy on politics already, you can do better on other areas of life (sport,entertainment etc) because I can see politics is not your way, the failure is getting too much for you , don't you tire ? easy on yourself nigga !

OSUN GUBER: 10 TAKEAWAYS FROM SUPREME COURT HEARING

By Adebiyi Adebisi

Supreme Court today spent about four hours devoted to the long drawn battle for Osun governorship.Chairing was the Chief Justice himself,Tanko Mohammed who alertedly coordinated the hearing ,enforcing rules and affirming the apex court readiness to do justice.

As much as the final judgement is scheduled for July 5th,the public beyond political propaganda may want to peruse the following as the takeaways from the hearing:

1. CJN'S FRANKNESS

Contrary to insinuations,the CJN demonstrated fairness, alertness and passion for adjudication with justice as the ultimate goal. Repeatedly,he affirmed: "We will read your briefs twice ,thrice and even more before we write our judgement. We will do justice". The insistence to follow substance rather than technicalities was clearly evident.

2. COUNSELS' STRATEGIES

The counsels on both sides were at maximum alert.The respondents' lawyers adopted the strategy of dodging the issue, the substance of the case,opting for an exit strategy by picking for errors in the appealant's brief. Interestingly, the only one the counsel got on one of the four Appeals under consideration was a secondary error which does not touch the primary core of the appeal.The Appealant's counsels on the other hand combined combative corrective measures before the lord justices while maintaining the focus on the core grounds of the appeal;

3. CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS

The CJN directed consolidation of the four appeals into two even while allowing all issues to be mentioned and addressed.The main appeal and the cross appeal which was a constititional issue were adopted under dramatic setting.The more than 30 grounds canvassed by the Appealant were thus consolidated .The goal was to fast track the hearing and ease the writing of final judgement;

4. UNANSWERED MAIN APPEAL

The appealant's counsel adopted the brief of the main appeal which was seeking upturning of Appeal Court judgement and seeking declaration of Ademola Adeleke as the governor of Osun state.Interestingly,neither APC nor INEC filed any brief on this. Both supported the brief filed by Gboyega Oyetola through his counsel ,Wole Olanipekun.

5. CROSS APPEAL SHOTS

The appealant also adopted the brief for the cross appeal, positing that on constititional ground, Senator Ademola Adeleke should have been declared winner based on September 22 poll results by the INEC in compliance with Section 179. (2) of CFRN. They also Cited a Supreme Court judgement in the case of Buhari versus Obasanjo, where the Supreme court struck down the INEC manual on use of Card Readers as it conflicted with the Electoral Act. The appealant argued that any additional conditions for winning election not known to the constitution should be struck down by the apex court.The CJN and others took copious note during the presentations.

6. APPEALANTS' LEGAL ERUDITION

Argument that September 22 outcome did not satisfy constitutional requirement of election being held in all parts of the state constituency was countered by appealant's counsel. The cancellation of seven polling units was described as an illegal act designed to rob the winner of September 22 victory through the holding of another illegal rerun on the 27th;

7.WEAK DEFENCE

The Oyetola/APC team at the Supreme Court today failed to come up with ANY CREDIBLE defense against Sen Ademola Adeleke's solid grounds of Appeal to be declared legitimate Governor of Osun state having satisfied the requirements of Section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Instead of arguing the merits of the case,the respondent went wild with a Preliminary Objection based on an observed minor typo at the last page of the notice of Appeal as transmitted by the Appeal court, particularly page 4,027, where the counsels were listed as "Counsel to the Respondents" instead of "Counsel to the Appeallant". A very trivial and inconsequential typo.

8. CRITICAL LEGAL NOTE

The Supreme Court ruled In JERIC NIGERIA LIMITED v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2000) 14 NWLR (pt.691), the Supreme Court per KALGO JSC at page 458 that quoted in part:

"........ The error is as in my respectful view not fatal as to render the appeal incompetent. It is also true as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that this court has long moved away from sticking to technicalities as opposed, to the determination of parties rights on merits and substantial justice. See the State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR at 160; Amako v. The state (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 399) 11 at 26; Akpan v. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 248) 439.

"I am therefore satisfied and hereby find that the putting in of the year *"1996 instead of “1997” in referring to the date of the judgment of the trial court appealed against to the Court of Appeal on the Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent, is a mere irregularity in the circumstances and did not vitiate the appeal or render the Court of Appeal incompetent to entertain the appeal".*

9. THE WEAK FOCUS

The typo that respondent's counsels based their arguments on was so inconsequential that it did not affect them in their replies as they did not refer to it in any of their reply briefs, it also occurred in 1 out of 4 Appeals filed by Senator Adeleke's team of Counsels, there cannot therefore be any basis for concern or alarm.

10. CONCLUSION

Judgement on the consolidated Appeals 553, 554 and 555 as well as the separate cross Appeal 556 were reserved till the 5th of July, 2019.

Adebisi who was in Abuja is based at Ikoyi Lagos.

77up:
Politics aside , I like your spirit, your loyalty, your zeal to see to the end of the matter .


But , take it easy,politics as a dirty game don't worth all these, you are exhausting your energy on politics already, you can do better on other areas of life (sport,entertainment etc) because I can see politics is not your way, the failure is getting too much for you , don't you tire ? easy on yourself nigga !

that's why you keep on living in your deluded state of mind. you have been brainwashed by the clueless tyrant in aso rock. that's why your ignorance is beyond redemption. it's not of your business in whoever the candidates I'm supporting. the likes of seyi makinde, matawalle, Ademola Adeleke ET AL have been winning their cases in the court of justice. but you have been brainwashed by the propagandists in Apc party. keep on living in your deluded state of mind.

Johnnyessence:
that's why you keep on living in your deluded state of mind. you have been brainwashed by the clueless tyrant in aso rock. that's why your ignorance is beyond redemption. it's not of your business in whoever the candidates I'm supporting. the likes of seyi makinde, matawalle, Ademola Adeleke ET AL have been winning their cases in the court of justice. but you have been brainwashed by the propagandists in Apc party. keep on living in your deluded state of mind.

lolz but in actual sense, the deluded one here is nobody but you, keep it up , Las Las you LL get sense.

i knew d acting cjn was up to no gud when i saw d names of justices to hear d case. adeleke should luk forward 2d future