THE PROCEDURAL NATURE OF FOURTH (4TH) ALTERATION AND ITS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT

While Stakeholders are appreciating the introduction of the 4th Alteration into our legislation, it is a disappointment for Political actors who have instituted suits bothering on the nomination/qualification of a candidate long before the coming into force of the 4th Alteration. It is an extant principle of law that no Law should operate retrospectively. The Supreme Court, in various pronouncements, declared the 4th Alteration to operate retrospectively since it deals with procedure.

The whole gravamen of the 4th Alteration of the 1999 Constitution in respect of Pre-election matters vis-à-vis the procedural effect provides for the following

Section 285(9): “pre-election suit must be filed within 14 days from the cause of action”.

Section 285(10): “a court in every pre-election matter shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of filing of the suit”.

Section 285(11): “It went further to state that “an appeal from a decision in a pre- election matter shall be filed within 14 days from the date of delivery of the judgment appealed against”.

Section 285(12): “An appeal from a decision of a court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal

According to the Supreme Court, the purport and essence of a limitation law is that where a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action should be brought, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. An action instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period is said to be statute-barred. The essence is that a legal right to enforce an action is not a perpetual right, but a right generally limited by statute. Therefore, a cause of action is statute-barred if legal proceedings cannot be commenced in respect of same because the period laid down by the limitation law had elapsed. The conspicuous effect of a limitation law is that legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period[color=#990000][/color]

the abracadabra judiciary can do anything ooo

OK nairaland judge, we hear you

When Jonathan is Involve in the matter?

Ebi4chris:

Are you ok? Seems you are related to diri.since the case was filed on sept 14,does it not occur to you that 180 days will elapse after march 14? By the way,judgment will be given this month

Ebi4chris:
Timi Alaibe has no case As noted in section 285(10) of this new act on pre-election matter which states clearly that all pre-election matters shall have its judgement in writing within 180 days (3 months) from the date of filling the suit by a court of law.. Timi Alaibe case is statute-barred due to lack of judgement within the stipulated time. Alaibe filed its case on 14th of September 2019 just 10 days after the PDP primaries were held on 4th of September 2019 and did not get a judgement within the stipulated 180 days and even up till this very monent.. In the same light Mr Segun Abraham's case vs Governor Akeredolu of Ondo state of the Apc was struck out by the supreme court.
Let's take a look a the 4th Alteration

THE PROCEDURAL NATURE OF FOURTH (4TH) ALTERATION AND ITS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT

While Stakeholders are appreciating the introduction of the 4th Alteration into our legislation, it is a disappointment for Political actors who have instituted suits bothering on the nomination/qualification of a candidate long before the coming into force of the 4th Alteration. It is an extant principle of law that no Law should operate retrospectively. The Supreme Court, in various pronouncements, declared the 4th Alteration to operate retrospectively since it deals with procedure.

The whole gravamen of the 4th Alteration of the 1999 Constitution in respect of Pre-election matters vis-à-vis the procedural effect provides for the following

Section 285(9): “pre-election suit must be filed within 14 days from the cause of action”.

Section 285(10): “a court in every pre-election matter shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of filing of the suit”.

Section 285(11): “It went further to state that “an appeal from a decision in a pre- election matter shall be filed within 14 days from the date of delivery of the judgment appealed against”.

Section 285(12): “An appeal from a decision of a court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal

According to the Supreme Court, the purport and essence of a limitation law is that where a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action should be brought, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. An action instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period is said to be statute-barred. The essence is that a legal right to enforce an action is not a perpetual right, but a right generally limited by statute. Therefore, a cause of action is statute-barred if legal proceedings cannot be commenced in respect of same because the period laid down by the limitation law had elapsed. The conspicuous effect of a limitation law is that legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period[color=#990000][/color]

So 180 days to you amount to 3 months? Most pdp supporters are so ignorant and uninformed about the law and politics.

There is no law or precedence under Tanko now. Judgements are now determined by how Tanko feels after looking at his 40 children and their school fees or when he is summoned by those that appointed him.

PDP might do well to reach out to Timi Alaibe and not be haughty to dismiss him with a wave of the hand. David Lyon and his Deputy of many names were too confident, having secured a favourable judgement from the Court of Appeal, only for the supreme Court to dash their hopes at the 11th hour.

On a side note: what has happened to that nonsense Deputy?

Ebi4chris:
Timi Alaibe has no case As noted in section 285(10) of this new act on pre-election matter which states clearly that all pre-election matters shall have its judgement in writing within 180 days (3 months) from the date of filling the suit by a court of law.. Timi Alaibe case is statute-barred due to lack of judgement within the stipulated time. Alaibe filed its case on 14th of September 2019 just 10 days after the PDP primaries were held on 4th of September 2019 and did not get a judgement within the stipulated 180 days and even up till this very monent.. In the same light Mr Segun Abraham's case vs Governor Akeredolu of Ondo state of the Apc was struck out by the supreme court.
Let's take a look a the 4th Alteration

THE PROCEDURAL NATURE OF FOURTH (4TH) ALTERATION AND ITS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT

While Stakeholders are appreciating the introduction of the 4th Alteration into our legislation, it is a disappointment for Political actors who have instituted suits bothering on the nomination/qualification of a candidate long before the coming into force of the 4th Alteration. It is an extant principle of law that no Law should operate retrospectively. The Supreme Court, in various pronouncements, declared the 4th Alteration to operate retrospectively since it deals with procedure.

The whole gravamen of the 4th Alteration of the 1999 Constitution in respect of Pre-election matters vis-à-vis the procedural effect provides for the following

Section 285(9): “pre-election suit must be filed within 14 days from the cause of action”.

Section 285(10): “a court in every pre-election matter shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of filing of the suit”.

Section 285(11): “It went further to state that “an appeal from a decision in a pre- election matter shall be filed within 14 days from the date of delivery of the judgment appealed against”.

Section 285(12): “An appeal from a decision of a court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal

According to the Supreme Court, the purport and essence of a limitation law is that where a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action should be brought, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. An action instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period is said to be statute-barred. The essence is that a legal right to enforce an action is not a perpetual right, but a right generally limited by statute. Therefore, a cause of action is statute-barred if legal proceedings cannot be commenced in respect of same because the period laid down by the limitation law had elapsed. The conspicuous effect of a limitation law is that legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period[color=#990000][/color]

180 days = 6 Months

Simple mathematics: 180/30 = 6

Its not a pdp loss. Even if he lose. Its still inhouse.. So ehy d stress