Abbycite:


Is not really an appeal.....the supreme court will review the judgement and whatever their decision will be, it won't affect the execution of the previous judgment.

It can affect the execution of the previous judgement as they can reverse and make another pronouncement. There are precedents in that regard.

CyberWolf:
Can you throw more light on that?

Let me put this way, the review is just an academic exercise.....nothing is coming off it as regards to the situation of governorship seat.

The Supreme Court judgement is final. But the supreme court judges are humans, so they are prone to errors like every human beings. So there is an avenue to review their judgement if there is a public outcry like we have now. I think this is done in order to forestall using the judgment for future citation in similar cases.

I pray that the curses and plaques God placed on Egyptians be the portions of all those who amalgamated the northern and southern proletariats together to become Nigeria. This country is cursed. See what politicians have reduced the Supreme Court to!!!

unitysheart:


It can affect the execution of the previous judgement as they can reverse and make another pronouncement. There are precedents in that regard.

I dont' get....are u saying there is a situation whereby the judgment of the Supreme Court was vacated after going through a review??

If there is a situation like that.....can u please point me to it

Oh

seunmsg:


What is wrong in APC requesting for review of judgement there were fraudulently procured by PDP? If PDP is seeking review of Imo state judgement despite not winning the state, APC should also seek review of Zamfara and Bayelsa states since they won those states overwhelmingly.

I'm not saying it's wrong,but how come their request was unknown to the public only to spring up now from no where?

Abbycite:


Let me put this way, the review is just an academic exercise.....nothing is coming off it as regards to the situation of governorship seat.

The Supreme Court judgement is final. But the supreme court judges are humans, so they are prone to errors like every human beings. So there is an avenue to review their judgement if there is a public outcry like we have now. I think this is done in order to forestall using the judgment for future citation in similar cases.

But there has been some instance here the Supreme Court reversed its judgement after finding out that the earlier judgment was delivered in error so, it can still happen because the error in this case is very obvious. Read the case of Olorunfemi v. Asho (Suit No. 13/1999). Also the NASS need to ammend the constitution so that Supreme Court so they can review and correct their judgment if there blatant error just like the Imo case. But the review should be done only once if not, Supreme Court will be politicized very soon the way I’m seeing it and it won’t augur well for the country.

Abbycite:


I dont' get....are u saying there is a situation whereby the judgment of the Supreme Court was vacated after going through a review??

If there is a situation like that.....can u please point me to it

Yes boss.

They reversed themselves in 1999 after reviewing a case. See precedents below:

Johnson v Lawanson
One of the earliest cases in which the Supreme Court was asked to reverse itself dates back to 1971 in the suit filed by Kobina Johnson and other vs Irene Lawanson and other.

This case is often referred to as the locus classical on the Supreme Court’s power to reverse itself on earlier decisions. The contention then was about the application of section 129 of the evidence act with regards to the duration within which a deed of assignment can be valid and competent.


Before the request for a review of the matter, the apex court had held and promoted a precedent that for a deed to be competent and relied on as contemplated by section 129 of the evidence act, it must be 20 years old at the date of proceedings. This was the law until February 12, 1971 when the Supreme Court decided to reverse itself.

The court which regretted its earlier position held that for a deed to be competent for the presumption contemplated by section 129 of the Evidence Act, it must be 20 years old “at the date of the contract” in which the deed is sought to be relied upon and not 20 years old at the date of the proceedings in which such a deed is being offered in evidence.


Coker J.S.C. delivering the court’s judgment held that “when the court is faced with the alternative of perpetuating what it is satisfied is an erroneous decision which was reached per incuriam and will, if followed, inflict hardship and injustice upon the generations in the future or of causing temporary disturbances of rights acquired under such a decision, I do not think we shall hesitate to declare the law as we find it.” The court then ordered that the appeal be re-heard de novo by another panel of Justices of the Supreme Court.

Olorunfemi v Asho

This is yet another case in which the Supreme Court took the bold position to set aside its earlier decision. The Supreme Court set aside its judgment delivered in January 8, 1999 on the ground that, it failed to consider the respondents’ cross–appeal before allowing the appellant’s appeal.

The judgment relates to an appeal and a cross-appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Kolawole, Tobi and Ubeazonu, J.JCA. The respondents (“the plaintiffs”) sued the appellants (“the defendants”) in the High Court of Lagos State claiming damages for trespass allegedly committed by the defendants on land at Akesan village sometime in December 1983 and injunction.


The defendants, on their own, counterclaimed against the plaintiffs for a declaration of customary right of occupancy to the land in dispute, damages for trespass and injunction. The High Court (Onalaja, J., as he then was) after taking evidence on the claim and the counterclaim, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.

He granted the declaration sought by the defendants and restrained the plaintiffs from further acts of trespass on the land claimed by the defendants. He rejected the defendant’s claim for damages for trespass. The plaintiffs filed an appeal that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Abbycite:


Let me put this way, the review is just an academic exercise.....nothing is coming off it as regards to the situation of governorship seat.

The Supreme Court judgement is final. But the supreme court judges are humans, so they are prone to errors like every human beings. So there is an avenue to review their judgement if there is a public outcry like we have now. I think this is done in order to forestall using the judgment for future citation in similar cases.

It is not an academic exercise.

[quote author=fergie001 post=86751628]https://www.sunnewsonline.com/zamfara-apc-supreme-court-adjourns-application-for-review-of-judgment-march-2/[/quote
If any judgement is contrary to earlier judgement by Supreme Court, Nigeria should forget anything like apex court

[quote author=grobis post=86758765][/quote]
This Zamfara case will be thrown out same day.

They have brought it on review...the SC dismissed it. They are bringing it chameleonically again.

This is the height of judicial rascality from that old man, Robert Clarke....if he likes, he can wait from now till eternity. The judgement is final.
Let him appeal to God.

unitysheart:


Yes boss.

They reversed themselves in 1999 after reviewing a case. See precedents below:

Johnson v Lawanson
One of the earliest cases in which the Supreme Court was asked to reverse itself dates back to 1971 in the suit filed by Kobina Johnson and other vs Irene Lawanson and other.

This case is often referred to as the locus classical on the Supreme Court’s power to reverse itself on earlier decisions. The contention then was about the application of section 129 of the evidence act with regards to the duration within which a deed of assignment can be valid and competent.


Before the request for a review of the matter, the apex court had held and promoted a precedent that for a deed to be competent and relied on as contemplated by section 129 of the evidence act, it must be 20 years old at the date of proceedings. This was the law until February 12, 1971 when the Supreme Court decided to reverse itself.

The court which regretted its earlier position held that for a deed to be competent for the presumption contemplated by section 129 of the Evidence Act, it must be 20 years old “at the date of the contract” in which the deed is sought to be relied upon and not 20 years old at the date of the proceedings in which such a deed is being offered in evidence.


Coker J.S.C. delivering the court’s judgment held that “when the court is faced with the alternative of perpetuating what it is satisfied is an erroneous decision which was reached per incuriam and will, if followed, inflict hardship and injustice upon the generations in the future or of causing temporary disturbances of rights acquired under such a decision, I do not think we shall hesitate to declare the law as we find it.” The court then ordered that the appeal be re-heard de novo by another panel of Justices of the Supreme Court.

Olorunfemi v Asho

This is yet another case in which the Supreme Court took the bold position to set aside its earlier decision. The Supreme Court set aside its judgment delivered in January 8, 1999 on the ground that, it failed to consider the respondents’ cross–appeal before allowing the appellant’s appeal.

The judgment relates to an appeal and a cross-appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Kolawole, Tobi and Ubeazonu, J.JCA. The respondents (“the plaintiffs”) sued the appellants (“the defendants”) in the High Court of Lagos State claiming damages for trespass allegedly committed by the defendants on land at Akesan village sometime in December 1983 and injunction.


The defendants, on their own, counterclaimed against the plaintiffs for a declaration of customary right of occupancy to the land in dispute, damages for trespass and injunction. The High Court (Onalaja, J., as he then was) after taking evidence on the claim and the counterclaim, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.

He granted the declaration sought by the defendants and restrained the plaintiffs from further acts of trespass on the land claimed by the defendants. He rejected the defendant’s claim for damages for trespass. The plaintiffs filed an appeal that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Thanks bro.

We learn everyday

ainas247:
With the increments of court cases on Election, please educate me,
can INEC be trusted again?

Meanwhile, can Judiciary be trusted again?