By: Akinloye NG.

As the ruling on the Imo guber appeal ruling review is now set for 3:00PM today, I will do a quick analysis on what transpired on both sides on the floor of the Supreme Court, before the Supreme Court stood down till later in the evening to give its ruling.

Lawyer to Emeka Ihedioha, Kanu Agabi, in his argument, advanced two claims of the appellant, Hope Uzodinma, claiming he was excluded from 388 polling units but tendered results from only 366 polling units and that with the addition of votes from 388 polling units in favour of him, the new result exceeded the total number of accredited voters by 129,000 votes.

In my last analysis, I pointed out two grounds which are only strong enough to warrant the Supreme Court being a court of records/precedence, to set aside its earlier ruling and give proper records and precedence in declaring Ihedioha as winner.

These two grounds are consequent upon the Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Uche Nwosu in December for double nomination having been validly nominated by both APC and AA, Hope Uzodinma is no more a candidate of any political party in the Imo guber contest, as no party can field two candidates for same position.

The other ground is the mismatch of total valid votes and total accredited voters after adding votes from the magical 388 PUs following claims of being cheated in 366 made by him.

It was a surprise that Chief Agabi advanced only the numerical mismatch which he split into two, leaving out the no-party ground in his address which already made the earlier ruling a constitutional crisis.

He only harped on an arm of the grounds, positing inadequate claims towards the case for a review.

On the other hand, the Counsel to Hope Uzodinma, Mr Damian Dodo, countered that the application to revisit, review or set aside the judgment of the court is an incompetent one lacking in merit.

He further argued that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over any judgment already delivered by it except where cases of typographical errors or slips are noticed and went further to say such errors have not been established.

Here, Mr. Damian Dodo erred because Ihedioha's application is calling on the court to revisit, review and set aside the judgment. It is competent and with constitutional merit and therefore not an appeal.

While he is correct to say that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over any judgment already delivered by it, he erred by seeing the application before the Supreme Court as an appeal. It is a review which the Supreme Court in its own earlier ruling stated it has jurisdiction over, so as to correct errors of misinterpretation or Judgement obtain in error or fraud

In my last analysis, I cited Oriker Jev & Ors. v. Iyortom & Ors. [2015] NWLR (Pt. 1483) 484, where the Supreme Court had in an earlier ruling mistakenly ordered that INEC conduct rerun election, but upon application for review, the court discovered it gave the said order based on a wrong interpretation of Section 133(2) in conjunction with Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and subsequently set aside the earlier ruling and ordered INEC to issue the applicant a certificate of return.

There is also a precedence of review in the case of Olorunfemi v. Asho [2000] 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 143. The Supreme Court in its 18th March, 1999 ruling set aside its earlier judgment delivered on the 8th January, 1999 and ordered that the appeal be heard de-novo by another panel, on the ground that it ought to have considered the Respondent’s cross-appeal first before allowing the Appellant’s appeal.

These are examples of where the Supreme Court once set aside its earlier rulings and they are not typographical errors but misinterpretation and administration of justice in errors like it is evident in the Imo ruling, which gave mandate to Uzodinma who was never a candidate of any political party with votes not in conformity with total accredited voters.

Akinloye NG

Ihedioha lawyers could have argued this before SC gave their judgements.. SC can not contradict itself.. May be he hired clueless lawyer in the first case. The worst results should have been rerun but they goofed.

Bayelsa's case was a precedence case study.. I am just hoping Pdp won't be shouting democracy under threats after judgement must have been made by SC judges

My guess is that the SC will take Ihedioha’s case into advisory and uphold its previous judgement, I may be wrong, but this case actually calls for the SC to review itself. If this were a case of death sentence given to an innocent person and new DNA evidence proves innocence, as long as the person has not been executed, the SC has a duty to change its decision.

BTW this case is completely different from Bayelsa case, though I still question why the election was not awarded to the runner up of the APC primary elections.

Last last the tyrant has destroyed every inch of progress made by the country out of greed to perpetuate himself in office despite overwhelming incompetence.

shrinkchido:

By: Akinloye NG.

As the ruling on the Imo guber appeal ruling review is now set for 3:00PM today, I will do a quick analysis on what transpired on both sides on the floor of the Supreme Court, before the Supreme Court stood down till later in the evening to give its ruling.

Lawyer to Emeka Ihedioha, Kanu Agabi, in his argument, advanced two claims of the appellant, Hope Uzodinma, claiming he was excluded from 388 polling units but tendered results from only 366 polling units and that with the addition of votes from 388 polling units in favour of him, the new result exceeded the total number of accredited voters by 129,000 votes.

In my last analysis, I pointed out two grounds which are only strong enough to warrant the Supreme Court being a court of records/precedence, to set aside its earlier ruling and give proper records and precedence in declaring Ihedioha as winner.

These two grounds are consequent upon the Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Uche Nwosu in December for double nomination having been validly nominated by both APC and AA, Hope Uzodinma is no more a candidate of any political party in the Imo guber contest, as no party can field two candidates for same position.

The other ground is the mismatch of total valid votes and total accredited voters after adding votes from the magical 388 PUs following claims of being cheated in 366 made by him.

It was a surprise that Chief Agabi advanced only the numerical mismatch which he split into two, leaving out the no-party ground in his address which already made the earlier ruling a constitutional crisis.

He only harped on an arm of the grounds, positing inadequate claims towards the case for a review.

On the other hand, the Counsel to Hope Uzodinma, Mr Damian Dodo, countered that the application to revisit, review or set aside the judgment of the court is an incompetent one lacking in merit.

He further argued that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over any judgment already delivered by it except where cases of typographical errors or slips are noticed and went further to say such errors have not been established.

Here, Mr. Damian Dodo erred because Ihedioha's application is calling on the court to revisit, review and set aside the judgment. It is competent and with constitutional merit and therefore not an appeal.

While he is correct to say that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over any judgment already delivered by it, he erred by seeing the application before the Supreme Court as an appeal. It is a review which the Supreme Court in its own earlier ruling stated it has jurisdiction over, so as to correct errors of misinterpretation or Judgement obtain in error or fraud

In my last analysis, I cited Oriker Jev & Ors. v. Iyortom & Ors. [2015] NWLR (Pt. 1483) 484, where the Supreme Court had in an earlier ruling mistakenly ordered that INEC conduct rerun election, but upon application for review, the court discovered it gave the said order based on a wrong interpretation of Section 133(2) in conjunction with Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and subsequently set aside the earlier ruling and ordered INEC to issue the applicant a certificate of return.

There is also a precedence of review in the case of Olorunfemi v. Asho [2000] 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 143. The Supreme Court in its 18th March, 1999 ruling set aside its earlier judgment delivered on the 8th January, 1999 and ordered that the appeal be heard de-novo by another panel, on the ground that it ought to have considered the Respondent’s cross-appeal first before allowing the Appellant’s appeal.

These are examples of where the Supreme Court once set aside its earlier rulings and they are not typographical errors but misinterpretation and administration of justice in errors like it is evident in the Imo ruling, which gave mandate to Uzodinma who was never a candidate of any political party with votes not in conformity with total accredited voters.

Akinloye NG

. The APC came with a review plea too on misinterpretation of. judgement but was penalised for #60m for abuse of court process.In my opinion if you feel aggrieved with SC judgement you can ask for a review if your plea lack merit the SC will strike it out.The constitution does not say it is an aberration to seek review of SC judgement.

Ihedioha,PDP and their lawyers should be fine 600 millions for bringing useless case to supreme court for review

haffaze777:
Ihedioha,PDP and their lawyers should be fine 600 millions for bringing useless case to supreme court for review

Hahahahhaha.. When be say na just N17m left in Pdp's bank account.. If Dem have N600m Dem for don complete their abandoned headquarter in Abuja

helinues:


Hahahahhaha.. When be say na just N17m left in Pdp's bank account.. If Dem have N600m Dem for don complete their abandoned headquarter in Abuja

They can sell wadata plaza to me,I need office for geo informatic office at Abuja,I can even appoint secondus as my chain man

haffaze777:


They can sell wadata plaza to me,I need office for geo informatic office at Abuja,I can even appoint secondus as my chain man

Secondus for person business, bad market

Even upon how abandoned the Wadata building is, unpaid Pdp staffs have looted some of the materials for the building

You can imagine how useless a party can be

Madam , are u inside the court chamber house where people usually sit. or u are typing from your window television.

Madam , are u inside the court chamber house where people usually sit. or u are typing from your window television.?

helinues:


Secondus for person business, bad market

Even upon how abandoned the Wadata building is, unpaid Pdp staffs have looted some of the materials for the building

You can imagine how useless a party can be

In as much as he won't be the one to direct the affair of my small company,he will be useful for line cutting,pillar distribution and mounting,who will give more than that to second man?