One, signing the judgement is one of the requirements for a valid ruling. However, in a panel of judges, apart from signing, you must have an opinion either written or expressed. The question is what judgement is the member 2 signing? She actually signed the judgement of the chairman and not her own.
2. I maintain that there's no valid tribunal judgement. It's a split decision read by 2 different judges. For one of the ruling to be ruling of the tribunal, the third judge must side one way or another by written or expression. Which of the judgement do you want the appellate courts to adjudicate on?
3. The Supreme Court has not made pronouncement on whether section 292 of the Constitution applies to tribunal because it has never happened before that a member of election tribunal will not give judgement in open court.

ejimatic:
. In 2018 the judge was absent on the day APC was presenting his witnesses and the same judge was appraiising the winesses he did not see. It was evident that he did not sign the register of attendance on the day APC was presenting the witnesses. Another judge should have read the judgment. Osun 2018 was different from 2022 where the judges attended the sittings and signed their judgements. By her signing the majority judgement it means she was in agreement with it. If she did not sign it was a nullity in law. The two judgements in my opinion stand but whether the majority judgement could be viwed as minority is our concern .This can be resolved if SC has made a statement on it before that it applies to TB.

adee17:
One, signing the judgement is one of the requirements for a valid ruling. However, in a panel of judges, apart from signing, you must have an opinion either written or expressed. The question is what judgement is the member 2 signing? She actually signed the judgement of the chairman and not her own.
2. I maintain that there's no valid tribunal judgement. It's a split decision read by 2 different judges. For one of the ruling to be ruling of the tribunal, the third judge must side one way or another by written or expression. Which of the judgement do you want the appellate courts to adjudicate on?
3. The Supreme Court has not made pronouncement on whether section 292 of the Constitution applies to tribunal because it has never happened before that a member of election tribunal will not give judgement in open court.

.1 By what you said in 2 the judgement could be 1 majority and 1 minority.... Nothing is impossible in judiciary I agree 2 In no 3 you said SC has never made any pronouncement on such a matter. I agree too. 3. In the case of Aregbesola ,APC and Oyinlola / PDP in 2011, Only justice Omage read the majority judgement signed by all members.Other judges said nothing apart from their signatures. In 2018 the majority judgement was read only without a say from the second judge yet it was accepted . I sincerely appreciate your beautiful argument on this matter .I await the opinion of AC and SC on this matter

Clevite:
Ademola Adeleke and PDP's lawyers are most likely to have the Tribunal's judgement upturned on this technical ground than having the judgement upturned on merit at the appellate courts.

The third member of the Tribunal who is a Chief Magistrate supporting the Justice Kume's lead judgement nullifying the election of Ademola Adeleke by only co-signing the judgement, without making her own separate pronouncement, may be highly fatal to the victory delivered to APC and Gboyega Oyetola by the Tribunal.

She may have deliberately done that knowing fully well that it would
Sabotage the case's Appeals

She could have been under Political Pressure and did that as a way out

GET INSTANT LOAN UP TO 20MILLION TO START UP YOUR BUSINESS OR OTHER PERAONAL PURPOSE AT YOUR FIRST TIME OF ASKING....

CHAT ON WÀTÁPP👇👇👇 NOTE: INSURANCE FEE IS VERY IMPORTANT
👍❤️👍❤️👍❤️👍❤️

KingOfTheDamned:
WE DONT CARE WHAT HAPPENS IN OSUN STATE


WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FOR NOW

We care and not just Osun but also in Lagos. Lagos
and Osun needs to be free of the tinubu shackles so that afflictions will never rise again thru that man. He is a breeding ground for everything wrong in a society.

Clevite:
Ademola Adeleke and PDP's lawyers are most likely to have the Tribunal's judgement upturned on this technical ground than having the judgement upturned on merit at the appellate courts.

The third member of the Tribunal who is a Chief Magistrate supporting the Justice Kume's lead judgement nullifying the election of Ademola Adeleke by only co-signing the judgement, without making her own separate pronouncement, may be highly fatal to the victory delivered to APC and Gboyega Oyetola by the Tribunal.

You're a mugu. Have you ever seen all the judges delivering their opinions in cases before election petition tribunals?

With this development, Governor Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke will win back his appeal in the Appeal court of justice as the lordships in the Appeal court will set aside the tribunal judgement

sangresan:


You're a mugu. Have you ever seen all the judges delivering their opinions in cases before election petition tribunals?

You resort to gutter language on me just because you want to air a contrary opinion to mine?! I would have chosen to ignore your insanity because this comment of yours obviously shows you have a brain infection.

But I will not allow you to get away with the arrant ignorance that has come with your brain damage. I will address your ignorance not because of you, but because of the many normal persons that are reading.

If it is not strange to see a judge in a panel consisting of more than one judges not making a separate pronouncement, if it is not even more strange to have a judge co-signing a judgment he concurs with, then why is it an issue that has become a topic of discussion by highly informed and learned people? Why is it counted so serious to the extent that the lawyers on the other side have made it a major ground of appeal? These are highly intelligent Senior Advocates of Nigeria, not ignoramuses like you!

Section 294 of the Constitution even makes it mandatory for all judges in a judicial panel to make their pronouncement separately. And the Supreme Court has nullified some judgements of the Court of Appeal for failure to abide by this Constitutional provision.

The only issue here is that the section of the Constitution does not specifically mention Election Petition Tribunal. And the most recent Osun Tribunal case happens to be the first time such is being challenged on appeal. That is why it is only the Supreme Court that can decide on it in all finality. And it is more than a 50:50 outcome. It is a very delicate position to be. That's why I used the word "likely", not "certainly".

So why has it become so problematic for you that you have to let lose your insanity on me for my comment? You must be seriously confused and sick in the head even by the way you look in this picture of yours:

You can’t have two majority decisions in a case. The second judge signing the majority judgment must have accepted everything presented therein unless it can be proved her signature was forged.

I am really surprise at the level of reasoning of Adeleke’s lawyers

reddingtonblack:



Do you even understand the case at all, INEC admitted Adeleke was declared winner of Osun base on the unsynchronized results, which is what was given to APC and apc presented it in courts.
The legal implication of that is, Only the report used by INEC to declared ADELEKE can be use to Nullify or Uphold adeleke victory and that is what the court did, besides all the judges unanimously declared there was over voting on both the synchronized and unsynchronized.

Let not forget, all the judge unanimously ruled certificate forgery against Adeleke, going by the electoral even that judgement is potent enough to unsit Adeleke, it happened in bayelsa where david lyon under apc was sacked by the supreme court cos of his deputy forged certificate.

You don't even know anything. Saying rubbish with confidence

Oyetola and his bullion van master are thievesOyetola and his bullion van master are thieves...

tempest01:


You don't even know anything. Saying rubbish with confidence

Well you could have said something

ejimatic:
.1 By what you said in 2 the judgement could be 1 majority and 1 minority.... Nothing is impossible in judiciary I agree 2 In no 3 you said SC has never made any pronouncement on such a matter. I agree too. 3. In the case of Aregbesola ,APC and Oyinlola / PDP in 2011, Only justice Omage read the majority judgement signed by all members.Other judges said nothing apart from their signatures. In 2018 the majority judgement was read only without a say from the second judge yet it was accepted . I sincerely appreciate your beautiful argument on this matter .I await the opinion of AC and SC on this matter

I wanted to point out the fact that a judge co-signing the judgement of another is not new. But thank God you mentioned some examples here. It won't invalidate the judgement in anyway. You can take that to the bank. What I expected the appeal to focus on is how to convince the AC not to rely on the CTC of the BVAS report issued by INEC to oyetola. If they can't succeed in this,they should just forget about it.

Indispensable85:



I wanted to point out the fact that a judge co-signing the judgement of another is not new. But thank God you mentioned some examples here. It won't invalidate the judgement in anyway. You can take that to the bank. What I expected the appeal to focus on is how to convince the AC not to rely on the CTC of the BVAS report issued by INEC to oyetola. If they can't succeed in this,they should just forget about it.

. I agree with you sir! The fulcrom of the AC is the acceptablity or non acceptability of the BVAS INEC issued first to APC. You are explicitly on point!

My governor sir, we're waiting for your 100days in office achievement. Let it shock them. Abi tribunal don cus wahala ni

seunmsg:
garfield1, do you think the technical point raised by Adeleke’s lawyers is strong enough to upturn the decision of the tribunal?

I dont know honestly until I see precedents

If by valid Tribunal ruling, you imply the issue of leading ruling, concurring ruling and dissenting ruling, then, indeed there's a point-in-limine matter before the Appellate. Correctly so, as you've indicated, it just be dealt with on that basis in the first instance before ventilating the merit of the case.
As I have alluded, the Appellate at in a fortunate situation to engage with s292 as read with s294. More so, they would also have to give credence to recent SC case dealing with similar scenario, albeit from an appearance basis. IMHO though, the jurisprudence of law, except where explicitly stated otherwise, as it is for AC and SC in Nigeria, leading judgement stands in coram. Should there be need for concurring, then concurring judgement must follow. Likewise, if dissenting, a dissenting judgement must follow.
One will suppose the dictum in the SC 84/2010 imports well.

adee17:
The first and major issue that will be determined by the appellate courts is if there's a valid tribunal judgement before them. If they decide there's none, then the purported tribunal judgment will be nullified and order a retrial.

semmyk:
If per chance there's no valid judgement, then, in law wouldn't it then be that there would be nothing live before the appellate court? As in jurisdiction 101
Invariably, what would the appellate court be considering. What would be the matter at hand?

On second thought. Is your argument that the Tribunal ruling is nullity on the basis that there are *only* two ruling. If so, are you saying, there's no leading ruling and dissenting ruling.
PS: I used leading and dissenting instead of majority and minority (as used by many). My choice is premised on SC judgement resolving that Nigeria follows UK where it's been resolved it's leading and not majority. In any case, this is mere schematic of law.
On the serious issue at hand, let's suppose the ruling is split into two; one for and one against. It appears that has not created a nullity yet. Why?
It is a ruling devoid of leading and dissenting. The remedy in law ought to be the Appellate compelling the third Tribunal judge to write concurring ruling. Why would it be concurring ruling. Simply put. The third Tribunal judge already signed in coram to the ruling for an unlike SC 84/2010, was in attendance.

In all of those let's all see how the Appellate handle this. More certainly, the matter ends in SC.

ejimatic:
. Section 294 of the constitution subsection 1 2 and 4 mandates AC and SC members to have a say in any judgement they make It doew not apply to TB . Whoever has something different can show us here for consideration. Additionally if both of them are minority judgements AC will decide another minority and majority judgement! ..My opinion.

Explain properly and avoid abbreviations to accommodate more people to engage you. Thanks

rolams:


Explain properly and avoid abbreviations if you want people to engage you. Thanks

Section 294 of the constitution subsection 1 2 and 4 mandates Appeal and Supreme Court members to have a say in any judgement they make It does not apply to Tribunal . Whoever has something different can show us here for consideration. Additionally if both of them are minority judgements Appeal Court will decide another minority and majority judgement! ..My opinion.