The Supreme Court is the last court of the land; meaning that after it, no other court is available to a party for further action. In other words, the situation is not like what happens in the lower courts when a party can proceed on appeal to a higher court where he is dissatisfied with a judgment.

DesChyko:
Facts on ground as a stroll through Imo environs would reveal, this verdict is an error as his emergence doesn't have the blessing of any majority in the 27 LGs that constitute Imo State. Hence the loud silence that followed thus. The Supreme court need not only reverse itself, but review its chief members. This decision is a shock at how they could arrive at this conclusion with all the evidence before them.




At what point did this narrative on Supreme Court judgement deflect to PDP lawyers?
@Mynd44 Rule 1 violated.

kahal29:
Impossible....... This is because

Election petitions are time bound. Hence the time allowed for hearing the election petition has elapsed. The Supreme Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution (First Alteration) Act 2010 introduces new Subsections (5), (6) & (7) as follows:

Section 5 _ “An election petition shall be filed within 21 days after the date of declaration of results of the election.

Section 6: “An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition (six months)

Section 7: “An appeal from decision of an election tribunal or Court shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the delivery of judgment of tribunal.

With this latest amendment, electoral disputes are now to span a maximum of eight months, from Election Tribunal to Appeal.

This is very progressive as it has dealt with the problem of electoral cases dragging on for years whilst one of the parties enjoys the pecks of the disputed office.

kahal29:
Impossible....... This is because

Election petitions are time bound. Hence the time allowed for hearing the election petition has elapsed. The Supreme Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution (First Alteration) Act 2010 introduces new Subsections (5), (6) & (7) as follows:

Section 5 _ “An election petition shall be filed within 21 days after the date of declaration of results of the election.

Section 6: “An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition (six months)

Section 7: “An appeal from decision of an election tribunal or Court shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the delivery of judgment of tribunal.

With this latest amendment, electoral disputes are now to span a maximum of eight months, from Election Tribunal to Appeal.

This is very progressive as it has dealt with the problem of electoral cases dragging on for years whilst one of the parties enjoys the pecks of the disputed office.

garfield1:

Did the people of zamfara welcome pdp? When did we start measuring judgment by what people think

Flyingngel:
Guy forget that thing, so long as our sharia man is the CJN and A PC is in power; I say forget.

kahal29:
Impossible....... This is because

Election petitions are time bound. Hence the time allowed for hearing the election petition has elapsed. The Supreme Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution (First Alteration) Act 2010 introduces new Subsections (5), (6) & (7) as follows:

Section 5 _ “An election petition shall be filed within 21 days after the date of declaration of results of the election.

Section 6: “An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition (six months)

Section 7: “An appeal from decision of an election tribunal or Court shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the delivery of judgment of tribunal.

With this latest amendment, electoral disputes are now to span a maximum of eight months, from Election Tribunal to Appeal.

This is very progressive as it has dealt with the problem of electoral cases dragging on for years whilst one of the parties enjoys the pecks of the disputed office.

PFRB:


It is a judicial review. Such is not time bound

mrvitalis:

What about Pre election matters ...because APC have no candidate in IMO state as said by the supreme court

efighter:


Yes, the Shariah CJN is stupidly political. How can he give all positions won by APC to another party in Zamfara? How can he say Seyi Makinde of PDP won Our State election? How can he and the PDP judges at the Supreme Court stop APC from contesting in the Rivers State?

helinues:
Why do Pdp always hired clones lawyers to represent them at court cases?

chozzy:



Oga, stop fooling yourself.
Why are all you ZOMBIES as dumb and brainless as your president in Aso Rock?

You're derailing someone's thread with silly talk about Zamfara and Rivers which even before their matter got
to Supreme Court everyone already knew APC had lost them. APC lost at state high court, lost at federal high court, lost
at Appeal court and it was not a surprise to anyone (except ZOMBIES) that they lost at Supreme Court. In those two states, INEC
maintained their stance throughout that they was never a primary election and for real, all parties knew they weren't primaries.

How then dare you compare the fraud in IMO to them?

The decision of the Supreme Court in the Imo governor-ship case that the exclusion of certain votes was illegal because it was done by unauthorized officials cannot be faulted;.....

But if the addition of the controversial votes creates mathematical errors as we now have, the court ought to correct such clerical error, accidental slip or omission.

In truth, if the Supreme Court had averted her mind to the absurdity of the figures we are now seeing, she would have seen with relative ease, some wisdom in the earlier rejection by the electoral body of obviously concocted figures which Nigerian politicians are expert of. 

She would have realized that allowing the figures would do incalculable damage to our electoral and democratic system.

We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final.Justices of this Court are human-beings, capable of erring.It will certainly be short sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth.

It is also true that this Court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions.Similarly, the Court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes.

When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this Court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be over-ruled. This Court has the power to over-rule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error.

Chukwudifu Oputa JSC in Adegoke Motors Vs.Adesanya.(Considering the powers of the Supreme Court as the final Court in the land to review its earlier decisions).