₦airaland Forum

The legal tango over the Osun State gubernatorial election held on 22nd and 27th September 2018, would be determined by the Supreme Court if the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) carriers out its threat to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered last Thursday, setting aside the March 22nd judgment of the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal, which sacked Governor Adegboyega Oyetola. While awaiting the apex court, let us examine some gravamen of the legal dispute.
Of particular interest to this column is the issue raised at the appeal by Wole Olanipekun SAN: whether the absence of learned Justice Peter Obiorah (who authored and read the lead judgment) at the tribunal sitting on February 6, has not rendered the majority decision of the tribunal a nullity. The learned Justice Obiorah was a member of the three-man panel that heard and determined the petition of Senator Ademola Adeleke and the PDP. On a majority of two-to-one, Adeleke carried the day at the tribunal.
That judgment has now been set aside on appeal, by a four-to-one majority panel, led by Justice Jummai Sankey. While Justices Abubakar Yahaya, Isaiah Akeju and Bitrus Sanga agreed with Justice Sankey, Justice Ita Mbaba dissented. Interestingly, there is a plethora of cases on the validity of a judgment delivered by a panel different from the one that heard a case. In Awolola v Governor Ekiti State (2019) All FWLR, (Pt. 971), 1-55, the Supreme Court was invited to overrule its decision in
Ubwa v Tiv Area Traditional Council (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 884) 427 as well as Sokoto State Government v Kamdex (Nig.) Limited (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1034) 466.
In Ubwa v Tiv Area Traditional Council , Magaji JCA who did not participate in hearing the appeal wrote and delivered a concurring judgment, in the case heard by Akpabio, Umoren and Chukwuma-Eneh, JJCA; while in
Sokoto State Government v Kamdex (Nig) Ltd , Justices Ogebe, Aderemi and Chukwuma-Eneh heard an appeal, however Justice Galadima who did not hear the appeal, wrote and delivered a concurring judgment, instead of Ogeb JCA. In Ubwa’s case , the apex court had after considering sections 247(1), 294(2) ad (4) of the 1999 constitution declared the judgment a nullity and ordered a retrial.
Also in Sokoto State government’s case, the Supreme Court held that the judgment was not a complete judgment of the Court of Appeal ‘because one of the Justices who heard the appeal did not reduce his judgment or opinion in writing capable of being delivered … as required by section 294(2) of the 1999 constitution.’ However in Awolola v Governor Ekiti State , the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions, including Shuaibu v N.A.B. Ltd (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 551) 582, (1998) 4 SCNJ 109.
The learned Justices referring to section 258(1), (2) and (3) of the 1979 Constitution held: “Sub-section (3) (supra) clearly provides a solution like the one at hand in this case, as it stated that where the decision of the court consists of more than one judge, the concurring opinion expressed by the majority justices shall be the binding.” They further held: “The sudden appearance of the name of Adio JCA as delivering a concurring judgement must be without doubt a genuine mistake made in the course of compiling the record.”
Interestingly, in Awolola v Governor Ekiti State , if the judgment of the judge who is not a member of the original panel is discountenanced, the judgment still stood as judgment of the majority. However, in Oyetola v Adeleke’s case at the tribunal, the panel is made up of three members. So should the Supreme Court find the judgment of Justice Peter Obiorah, one of the panellist invalid, because he did not sit with the other two members on February 6, as shown by the records of appeal, there will be no majority judgment left to stand, since the tribunal was made up of only three judges.
The surviving judgment, will become a minority judgment, just like the dissenting judgment of the chairman of the tribunal, and may therefore not meet the threshold established in Awolola v Governor Ekiti State and Shuaibu v N.A.B. Ltd,
or even the earlier case of Adeigbe v Kusimo (1965) NMLR 284, wherein the Supreme Court held: “We are therefore of the opinion that variations in the bench do not make the judgment a nullity; they may make unsatisfactory; and it may have to set aside for this reason, but whether they do or not depends on the particular circumstances of the case.”
The circumstance in Oyetola v Adeleke may be such that the sitting of only two members out of three at a stage of the proceedings, may render the judgment nugatory as held by the dissenting judgment of Mary Peter-Odili JSC in
Awolola v Governor Ekiti State. In her judgment, Justice Peter-Odili, quoted Justice Kutigi JSC in
Ubwa v Tiv Area Traditional Council , wherein he said: “The entire proceedings before the Court of Appeal were a nullity because all members who heard the appeal and those who wrote the judgments were not all present throughout the hearing of the appeal which includes delivery of judgment.”
Should the Supreme Court come to the conclusion that the absence of learned Justice Obiorah “throughout the hearing” of the petition (a position affirmed by section 285(4) of the 1999 constitution: which provides that the quorum of an election tribunal shall be the chairman and two members) affected the validity of judgement at the tribunal, and choose to order a retrial, Senator Adeleke and the Peoples Democratic Party may then face the challenge posed by the provision of section 285(6) of the 1999 constitution (as amended). That section provides that an election tribunal shall deliver its judgment within 180 days of the petition.
No doubt, should PDP and her candidate proceed on appeal, the coming days will be days of anxiety for Governor Oyetola and Senator Adeleke and their supporters. That is because section 285(7) of the constitution (as amended) provides that “an appeal from a decision of an election tribunal or court shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of delivery of judgment of the tribunal.” Clearly, the reversal of the judgment of the trial tribunal brought a lot of excitement to the people of Osun, and many of them look forward to a favourable judgment at the apex court.
Reacting to the victory at the appeal court, Adeniyi Adesina, the Chief Press Secretary to Governor Oyetola, on behalf of the governor wrote: “After months of uncertainty and wait in judicial wilderness, truth has finally prevailed over falsehood….” The next 60 days will determine who finally carries the day in the legal mater.

It is clear that the appeal court were right.judicial precedents clearly shows that the supreme court will upheld the decision of the appeal.worst case scenario will be that obiorah's participation will be nullified leaving the two different rulings to be tied therefore calling for a retrial which is impossible.oyetola has pocketed this.
Tuniski
Engineerboat
Johnnyessence
Seunmsg
Christiannorth

Adeleke is wasting his time n loot

garfield1:
Thats what adeleke has turned you and your family to

. You and your friend should not be abusing each other.Everybody is free to express his opinion.Thank you.

ejimatic:
. You and your friend should not be abusing each other.Everybody is free to express his opinion.Thank you.

He is a bitter rival.instead of him to address me maturely or ignore me,he chose to act childishly.he is obviously in pains after the adeleke loss.he claims to be a lawyer but i a non lawyer has bested him severally

Undoubtedly I wont be surprise if Oyetola is favored by the supreme Court.
Its glaring that the fittest with federal mighty ar winning the race

[quote author=garfield1 post=78376641]He is a bitter rival.instead of him to address me maturely or ignore me,he chose to act childishly.he is obviously in pains after the adeleke loss.he claims to be a lawyer but i a non lawyer has bested him severally[/Quote]. Please don't be offended with this development.Peoe react in different ways on Nairaland.Some immature some mature some balanced some destructive..It seems many on Nairaland don't know that whether right or wrong you are entitled to your opinion.When expressing our ooinios we should be courteous and respectful.Please overlook his reaction and embrace online tolerance.

garfield1:
He is a bitter rival.instead of him to address me maturely or ignore me,he chose to act childishly.he is obviously in pains after the adeleke loss.he claims to be a lawyer but i a non lawyer has bested him severally

. Please sorry about that. Nairaland is an assembly of different people with diverse behaviours. some mature some immature some childish some reasonable....please overlook it I hope he will change too.

By the constitution, the appeal court judgement is a nulity.

ejimatic:
The legal tango over the Osun State gubernatorial election held on 22nd and 27th September 2018, would be determined by the Supreme Court if the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) carriers out its threat to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered last Thursday, setting aside the March 22nd judgment of the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal, which sacked Governor Adegboyega Oyetola. While awaiting the apex court, let us examine some gravamen of the legal dispute.
Of particular interest to this column is the issue raised at the appeal by Wole Olanipekun SAN: whether the absence of learned Justice Peter Obiorah (who authored and read the lead judgment) at the tribunal sitting on February 6, has not rendered the majority decision of the tribunal a nullity. The learned Justice Obiorah was a member of the three-man panel that heard and determined the petition of Senator Ademola Adeleke and the PDP. On a majority of two-to-one, Adeleke carried the day at the tribunal.
That judgment has now been set aside on appeal, by a four-to-one majority panel, led by Justice Jummai Sankey. While Justices Abubakar Yahaya, Isaiah Akeju and Bitrus Sanga agreed with Justice Sankey, Justice Ita Mbaba dissented. Interestingly, there is a plethora of cases on the validity of a judgment delivered by a panel different from the one that heard a case. In Awolola v Governor Ekiti State (2019) All FWLR, (Pt. 971), 1-55, the Supreme Court was invited to overrule its decision in
Ubwa v Tiv Area Traditional Council (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 884) 427 as well as Sokoto State Government v Kamdex (Nig.) Limited (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1034) 466.
In Ubwa v Tiv Area Traditional Council , Magaji JCA who did not participate in hearing the appeal wrote and delivered a concurring judgment, in the case heard by Akpabio, Umoren and Chukwuma-Eneh, JJCA; while in
Sokoto State Government v Kamdex (Nig) Ltd , Justices Ogebe, Aderemi and Chukwuma-Eneh heard an appeal, however Justice Galadima who did not hear the appeal, wrote and delivered a concurring judgment, instead of Ogeb JCA. In Ubwa’s case , the apex court had after considering sections 247(1), 294(2) ad (4) of the 1999 constitution declared the judgment a nullity and ordered a retrial.
Also in Sokoto State government’s case, the Supreme Court held that the judgment was not a complete judgment of the Court of Appeal ‘because one of the Justices who heard the appeal did not reduce his judgment or opinion in writing capable of being delivered … as required by section 294(2) of the 1999 constitution.’ However in Awolola v Governor Ekiti State , the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions, including Shuaibu v N.A.B. Ltd (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 551) 582, (1998) 4 SCNJ 109.
The learned Justices referring to section 258(1), (2) and (3) of the 1979 Constitution held: “Sub-section (3) (supra) clearly provides a solution like the one at hand in this case, as it stated that where the decision of the court consists of more than one judge, the concurring opinion expressed by the majority justices shall be the binding.” They further held: “The sudden appearance of the name of Adio JCA as delivering a concurring judgement must be without doubt a genuine mistake made in the course of compiling the record.”
Interestingly, in Awolola v Governor Ekiti State , if the judgment of the judge who is not a member of the original panel is discountenanced, the judgment still stood as judgment of the majority. However, in Oyetola v Adeleke’s case at the tribunal, the panel is made up of three members. So should the Supreme Court find the judgment of Justice Peter Obiorah, one of the panellist invalid, because he did not sit with the other two members on February 6, as shown by the records of appeal, there will be no majority judgment left to stand, since the tribunal was made up of only three judges.
The surviving judgment, will become a minority judgment, just like the dissenting judgment of the chairman of the tribunal, and may therefore not meet the threshold established in Awolola v Governor Ekiti State and Shuaibu v N.A.B. Ltd,
or even the earlier case of Adeigbe v Kusimo (1965) NMLR 284, wherein the Supreme Court held: “We are therefore of the opinion that variations in the bench do not make the judgment a nullity; they may make unsatisfactory; and it may have to set aside for this reason, but whether they do or not depends on the particular circumstances of the case.”
The circumstance in Oyetola v Adeleke may be such that the sitting of only two members out of three at a stage of the proceedings, may render the judgment nugatory as held by the dissenting judgment of Mary Peter-Odili JSC in
Awolola v Governor Ekiti State. In her judgment, Justice Peter-Odili, quoted Justice Kutigi JSC in
Ubwa v Tiv Area Traditional Council , wherein he said: “The entire proceedings before the Court of Appeal were a nullity because all members who heard the appeal and those who wrote the judgments were not all present throughout the hearing of the appeal which includes delivery of judgment.”
Should the Supreme Court come to the conclusion that the absence of learned Justice Obiorah “throughout the hearing” of the petition (a position affirmed by section 285(4) of the 1999 constitution: which provides that the quorum of an election tribunal shall be the chairman and two members) affected the validity of judgement at the tribunal, and choose to order a retrial, Senator Adeleke and the Peoples Democratic Party may then face the challenge posed by the provision of section 285(6) of the 1999 constitution (as amended). That section provides that an election tribunal shall deliver its judgment within 180 days of the petition.
No doubt, should PDP and her candidate proceed on appeal, the coming days will be days of anxiety for Governor Oyetola and Senator Adeleke and their supporters. That is because section 285(7) of the constitution (as amended) provides that “an appeal from a decision of an election tribunal or court shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of delivery of judgment of the tribunal.” Clearly, the reversal of the judgment of the trial tribunal brought a lot of excitement to the people of Osun, and many of them look forward to a favourable judgment at the apex court.
Reacting to the victory at the appeal court, Adeniyi Adesina, the Chief Press Secretary to Governor Oyetola, on behalf of the governor wrote: “After months of uncertainty and wait in judicial wilderness, truth has finally prevailed over falsehood….” The next 60 days will determine who finally carries the day in the legal mater.

you have started posting your epistles and propaganda as expected, you will be surprised with the ruling of supreme court of justice. Supreme justices will rule based on the tribunal judgment. If you read the minority judgement from the minority judge in the appeal court last week , you will be surprised that the majority judgment was bought by the APC .Infact the minority judge award 200k against the appellant and APC in his judgement. Keep on posting your epistles as expected. It will never hold any water.

garfield1:
It is clear that the appeal court were right.judicial precedents clearly shows that the supreme court will upheld the decision of the appeal.worst case scenario will be that obiorah's participation will be nullified leaving the two different rulings to be tied therefore calling for a retrial which is impossible.oyetola has pocketed this.
Tuniski
Engineerboat
Johnnyessence
Seunmsg
Christiannorth

the likes of you and others was all over nairaland every minute in commenting on rivers state election, at the end, lion Nyesom wike won the election with AAC having 2 local governments. You will fail again as usual. Pdp will triumph in the supreme court of justice. Read the minority judgement of the appeal court, you will know vividly that the majority judgment was bought by the APC and the Supreme Court will nullify that judgement and based their judgement on the tribunal judgment. Just keep your fingers crossed.

Johnnyessence:
you have started posting your epistles and propaganda as expected, you will be surprised with the ruling of supreme court of justice. Supreme justices will rule based on the tribunal judgment. If you read the minority judgement from the minority judge in the appeal court last week , you will be surprised that the majority judgment was bought by the APC .Infact the minority judge award 200k against the appellant and APC in his judgement. Keep on posting your epistles as expected. It will never hold any water.

my comment is reserved till after Supreme court judgement...

Johnnyessence:
the likes of you and others was all over nairaland every minute in commenting on rivers state election, at the end, lion Nyesom wike won the election with AAC having 2 local governments. You will fail again as usual. Pdp will triumph in the supreme court of justice. Read the minority judgement of the appeal court, you will know vividly that the majority judgment was bought by the APC and the Supreme Court will nullify that judgement and based their judgement on the tribunal judgment. Just keep your fingers crossed.

Shut up.the minority judgment by just one judge? Did you read the supreme court rulings concerning absence of a judge

garfield1:
Shut up.the minority judgment by just one judge? Did you read the supreme court rulings concerning absence of a judge

. Thank you for your reasoning.I appreciate you...I decided not to answer him until after the judgement at the Supreme court.. However your opinion has answered it all We will see how one man baseless minority judgement will upturn majority judgement at the supreme court in the face of precedences and constitution and Supreme court standings on it ....Congratulations s to Oyetola in advance

garfield1:
Shut up.the minority judgment by just one judge? Did you read the supreme court rulings concerning absence of a judge

you are always ignorant of what you are saying here, that's why you always lost. This was how you are displaying your ignorance in the rivers thread now wike will be governor for another 4 years .You just have to deal with that. Concerning osun state case, you will recall very well from the tribunal judgement that the tribunal Justices did their evidences and exhibits presented to them in the appeal court. If you read the majority judgment from the majority justices, they don't judge based on the evidences and exhibits tribunal Justice decided on the cases presented to them. It was only the minority judgement that was read out by the minority judge which based his judgement against the tribunal judgement. Infact the judge award 200k against the appellant and its candidate. Supreme Court will rule based on what the tribunal judges ruled .

ejimatic:
. Thank you for your reasoning.I appreciate you...I decided not to answer him until after the judgement at the Supreme court.. However your opinion has answered it all We will see how one man baseless minority judgement will upturn majority judgement at the supreme court in the face of precedences and constitution and Supreme court standings on it ....Congratulations s to Oyetola in advance

the same way you are rolling out rubbish statistics that doesn't hold any water during the governorship election in September 22 last year, at the end, distinguished senator Ademola Adeleke won the governorship election. Supreme Court justices will rule on that. The whole world knows that distinguished senator Ademola Adeleke won the election.

Johnnyessence:
you are always ignorant of what you are saying here, that's why you always lost. This was how you are displaying your ignorance in the rivers thread now wike will be governor for another 4 years .You just have to deal with that. Concerning osun state case, you will recall very well from the tribunal judgement that the tribunal Justices did their evidences and exhibits presented to them in the appeal court. If you read the majority judgment from the majority justices, they don't judge based on the evidences and exhibits tribunal Justice decided on the cases presented to them. It was only the minority judgement that was read out by the minority judge which based his judgement against the tribunal judgement. Infact the judge award 200k against the appellant and its candidate. Supreme Court will rule based on what the tribunal judges ruled .

You are wrong as usual.apart from the rivers case which i wasn't serious about,its only the osun tribunal case you won.in rivers,apc were always going to lose and i didnt quote any law to support them.
your comments shows that you are new to legal matters that is why before the appeal court ruled,you were celebrating childishly common errors and moods in the courtroom.in every case before the substantive matter are looked into,they will first deal with preliminary objections which deals with technicalities.the tribunal made a lot of technical errors and apc duly took advantage of that.once you lose the technical battle,its over.they cant look at the main issue.even in rivers,apc lost based on techniques.in osun,the minority judgment recognised the technical error made by the tribunal and clearly tried to defend it.it is the first issue the supreme court would look at.

Apart from the technical error,issues in the main case were ruled in favour of apc.you lied that the judges did not rule based on exhibits or evidences.though there was no need for that but they still dealt with that.
Looking at results of 17 polling units,what they tribunal found out was improper balloting and alterations which did not affect the final results.results in copies held by pdp were same with the originals.pdp did not prove over voting or voided votes.what they proved is alterations which does not constitute substsntial non compliance with the electoral act.even if it does,the electoral act calls for a rerun which the tribunal failed to call.take note of this mistake.i also predicted this earlier.
Section 140 of the electoral act gives the courts powers to only cancel polls or upheld and nothing else which the tribunal went beyond.take note.
Concerning the 7 polling units were supplementaries took place,they were no elections there,even the tribunal agreed with that yet went ahead to nullify the rerun polls when clearly inec were right in csncelling and ordering a rerun.the electoral act provides that presiding officers can cancel elections but when they are not able to or partake in subverting the process,their siuperiors will do so and this was done.this is a case if disenfranchisement which the constitution dislikes and the supreme court will surely comment inec for allowing this that couldn't vote to do so.it is universal.
Adeleke may have actually won but he didnt provide compelling evidences and also the tribunal made errors which destroyed his case.too many loopholes.it is over.mourn no mor

garfield1:
You are wrong as usual.apart from the rivers case which i wasn't serious about,its only the osun tribunal case you won.in rivers,apc were always going to lose and i didnt quote any law to support them.
your comments shows that you are new to legal matters that is why before the appeal court ruled,you were celebrating childishly common errors and moods in the courtroom.in every case before the substantive matter are looked into,they will first deal with preliminary objections which deals with technicalities.the tribunal made a lot of technical errors and apc duly took advantage of that.once you lose the technical battle,its over.they cant look at the main issue.even in rivers,apc lost based on techniques.in osun,the minority judgment recognised the technical error made by the tribunal and clearly tried to defend it.it is the first issue the supreme court would look at.

Apart from the technical error,issues in the main case were ruled in favour of apc.you lied that the judges did not rule based on exhibits or evidences.though there was no need for that but they still dealt with that.
Looking at results of 17 polling units,what they tribunal found out was improper balloting and alterations which did not affect the final results.results in copies held by pdp were same with the originals.pdp did not prove over voting or voided votes.what they proved is alterations which does not constitute substsntial non compliance with the electoral act.even if it does,the electoral act calls for a rerun which the tribunal failed to call.take note of this mistake.i also predicted this earlier.
Section 140 of the electoral act gives the courts powers to only cancel polls or upheld and nothing else which the tribunal went beyond.take note.
Concerning the 7 polling units were supplementaries took place,they were no elections there,even the tribunal agreed with that yet went ahead to nullify the rerun polls when clearly inec were right in csncelling and ordering a rerun.the electoral act provides that presiding officers can cancel elections but when they are not able to or partake in subverting the process,their siuperiors will do so and this was done.this is a case if disenfranchisement which the constitution dislikes and the supreme court will surely comment inec for allowing this that couldn't vote to do so.it is universal.
Adeleke may have actually won but he didnt provide compelling evidences and also the tribunal made errors which destroyed his case.too many loopholes.it is over.mourn no mor

. Thank you my brother for putting the record straight.It is clear he does not understand the legal system. Thank you for educating him.My comment is reserved after the Supreme court judgement.... congratulations to Oyetola in advance

garfield1:
You are wrong as usual.apart from the rivers case which i wasn't serious about,its only the osun tribunal case you won.in rivers,apc were always going to lose and i didnt quote any law to support them.
your comments shows that you are new to legal matters that is why before the appeal court ruled,you were celebrating childishly common errors and moods in the courtroom.in every case before the substantive matter are looked into,they will first deal with preliminary objections which deals with technicalities.the tribunal made a lot of technical errors and apc duly took advantage of that.once you lose the technical battle,its over.they cant look at the main issue.even in rivers,apc lost based on techniques.in osun,the minority judgment recognised the technical error made by the tribunal and clearly tried to defend it.it is the first issue the supreme court would look at.

Apart from the technical error,issues in the main case were ruled in favour of apc.you lied that the judges did not rule based on exhibits or evidences.though there was no need for that but they still dealt with that.
Looking at results of 17 polling units,what they tribunal found out was improper balloting and alterations which did not affect the final results.results in copies held by pdp were same with the originals.pdp did not prove over voting or voided votes.what they proved is alterations which does not constitute substsntial non compliance with the electoral act.even if it does,the electoral act calls for a rerun which the tribunal failed to call.take note of this mistake.i also predicted this earlier.
Section 140 of the electoral act gives the courts powers to only cancel polls or upheld and nothing else which the tribunal went beyond.take note.
Concerning the 7 polling units were supplementaries took place,they were no elections there,even the tribunal agreed with that yet went ahead to nullify the rerun polls when clearly inec were right in csncelling and ordering a rerun.the electoral act provides that presiding officers can cancel elections but when they are not able to or partake in subverting the process,their siuperiors will do so and this was done.this is a case if disenfranchisement which the constitution dislikes and the supreme court will surely comment inec for allowing this that couldn't vote to do so.it is universal.
Adeleke may have actually won but he didnt provide compelling evidences and also the tribunal made errors which destroyed his case.too many loopholes.it is over.mourn no mor

section 140, subsection 3 or 4 has inteprete that .Don't let someone write-up cajoled you here. Sit down and read the tribunal judgement and also judged it based on the law of the land .Pdp present 80 evidences and over 100 exhibits, Apc only present 15 evidences. Inec didn't present any evidence in the tribunal court. That's why the tribunal judges ruled that Ademola Adeleke is the duelly winner of September 22nd governorship election. Infact the cancelled rerun election in their judgement. Appeal court didn't do that. They only based their judgement on the minority judgement by the minority judge from the tribunal. Justice obiora only skip one sitting in which it's not justiceable not to decide on the tribunal cases on the day of judgement. The minority judge in the appeal court judgement said it in his ruling. He even award 200k against the APC party and oyetola. Read the judgement from the minority judge of the appeal court judgement..

Johnnyessence:
section 140, subsection 3 or 4 has inteprete that .Don't let someone write-up cajoled you here. Sit down and read the tribunal judgement and also judged it based on the law of the land .Pdp present 80 evidences and over 100 exhibits, Apc only present 15 evidences. Inec didn't present any evidence in the tribunal court. That's why the tribunal judges ruled that Ademola Adeleke is the duelly winner of September 22nd governorship election. Infact the cancelled rerun election in their judgement. Appeal court didn't do that. They only based their judgement on the minority judgement by the minority judge from the tribunal. Justice obiora only skip one sitting in which it's not justiceable not to decide on the tribunal cases on the day of judgement. The minority judge in the appeal court judgement said it in his ruling. He even award 200k against the APC party and oyetola. Read the judgement from the minority judge of the appeal court judgement..

Guy,you clearly have comprehension issues and i cant help you.seems am wasting my time on you.this will be my last comment here.
That pdp called thousands of witnesses or brought several evidences means nothing if they cant be compelling or damning.whether apc bring witnesses or evidences doesnt matter.it is now left for pdp the accuser to prove its case and they didnt beyond doubt.only the testimonies of 5 pdp witnesses were taken and they were even originally termed speculstivs and hearsays.adeleke only concentrsted on proving over voting which he failed to prove.
Section 140 says tribunals cannot declare a winner or subtract votes.yusuf alli during the hesring at the appeal coúrt ssid a full supreme court panel has affirmed this section before.the judge asked if the tribunal were aware.this was the turning point.engineer boat was the op who opened that thread.him and the rest of you were mocking me but now all of you are tearful.
Non appearancr or absence of a judge at the sitting is enough to nullify the case.this particular op opened this thread to show us how the supreme court have been ruling when a judge is absence yet you said its rubbish.
the judges did not rule only on non absence but on the 17 units,rerun and other matters.stop wasting my time.commonsense should tell you that for 4 judges out of 5 to rule agsinst Adeleke means that he lost well

Johnnyessence:
the same way you are rolling out rubbish statistics that doesn't hold any water during the governorship election in September 22 last year, at the end, distinguished senator Ademola Adeleke won the governorship election. Supreme Court justices will rule on that. The whole world knows that distinguished senator Ademola Adeleke won the election.

You are the rubbish fellow,you and adeleke.you call supreme court rulings rubbish and you are hoping for the supreme court to rule in your favor? Only small boys like you allow emotions to always control them.

garfield1:
Guy,you clearly have comprehension issues and i cant help you.seems am wasting my time on you.this will be my last comment here.
That pdp called thousands of witnesses or brought several evidences means nothing if they cant be compelling or damning.whether apc bring witnesses or evidences doesnt matter.it is now left for pdp the accuser to prove its case and they didnt beyond doubt.only the testimonies of 5 pdp witnesses were taken and they were even originally termed speculstivs and hearsays.adeleke only concentrsted on proving over voting which he failed to prove.
Section 140 says tribunals cannot declare a winner or subtract votes.yusuf alli during the hesring at the appeal coúrt ssid a full supreme court panel has affirmed this section before.the judge asked if the tribunal were aware.this was the turning point.engineer boat was the op who opened that thread.him and the rest of you were mocking me but now all of you are tearful.
Non appearancr or absence of a judge at the sitting is enough to nullify the case.this particular op opened this thread to show us how the supreme court have been ruling when a judge is absence yet you said its rubbish.
the judges did not rule only on non absence but on the 17 units,rerun and other matters.stop wasting my time.commonsense should tell you that for 4 judges out of 5 to rule agsinst Adeleke means that he lost well

stop behaving childish here, evidences is very important in tribunal cases, maybe you haven't experienced the sitting before . If you refused to speak the truths, you will be smelling lies, you better learn more lies from your mentor Liar Mohammed. Besides , you don't talk again on rivers state election. I guess Apc will be queuing up again in 2023. Besides rivers state is pdp state. The state pdp will win is edo State. Just be patient with next year election in edo state. Pdp is coming.

garfield1:
You are the rubbish fellow,you and adeleke.you call supreme court rulings rubbish and you are hoping for the supreme court to rule in your favor? Only small boys like you allow emotions to always control them.

your hyprocrisy is beyond control .Stop been childish here. Supreme Court will rule based on the tribunal judgment. Just save this post .Thanks .

Johnnyessence:
you are always ignorant of what you are saying here, that's why you always lost. This was how you are displaying your ignorance in the rivers thread now wike will be governor for another 4 years .You just have to deal with that. Concerning osun state case, you will recall very well from the tribunal judgement that the tribunal Justices did their evidences and exhibits presented to them in the appeal court. If you read the majority judgment from the majority justices, they don't judge based on the evidences and exhibits tribunal Justice decided on the cases presented to them. It was only the minority judgement that was read out by the minority judge which based his judgement against the tribunal judgement. Infact the judge award 200k against the appellant and its candidate. Supreme Court will rule based on what the tribunal judges ruled .

that is how you always deceived those idiotic pigs that thief atiku must win the election, but today is buhari till 2023.

garfield1:
You are wrong as usual.apart from the rivers case which i wasn't serious about,its only the osun tribunal case you won.in rivers,apc were always going to lose and i didnt quote any law to support them.
your comments shows that you are new to legal matters that is why before the appeal court ruled,you were celebrating childishly common errors and moods in the courtroom.in every case before the substantive matter are looked into,they will first deal with preliminary objections which deals with technicalities.the tribunal made a lot of technical errors and apc duly took advantage of that.once you lose the technical battle,its over.they cant look at the main issue.even in rivers,apc lost based on techniques.in osun,the minority judgment recognised the technical error made by the tribunal and clearly tried to defend it.it is the first issue the supreme court would look at.

Apart from the technical error,issues in the main case were ruled in favour of apc.you lied that the judges did not rule based on exhibits or evidences.though there was no need for that but they still dealt with that.
Looking at results of 17 polling units,what they tribunal found out was improper balloting and alterations which did not affect the final results.results in copies held by pdp were same with the originals.pdp did not prove over voting or voided votes.what they proved is alterations which does not constitute substsntial non compliance with the electoral act.even if it does,the electoral act calls for a rerun which the tribunal failed to call.take note of this mistake.i also predicted this earlier.
Section 140 of the electoral act gives the courts powers to only cancel polls or upheld and nothing else which the tribunal went beyond.take note.
Concerning the 7 polling units were supplementaries took place,they were no elections there,even the tribunal agreed with that yet went ahead to nullify the rerun polls when clearly inec were right in csncelling and ordering a rerun.the electoral act provides that presiding officers can cancel elections but when they are not able to or partake in subverting the process,their siuperiors will do so and this was done.this is a case if disenfranchisement which the constitution dislikes and the supreme court will surely comment inec for allowing this that couldn't vote to do so.it is universal.
Adeleke may have actually won but he didnt provide compelling evidences and also the tribunal made errors which destroyed his case.too many loopholes.it is over.mourn no mor

. Good contribution ..very enlightened .....You understand Nigeria legal system

garfield1:
Guy,you clearly have comprehension issues and i cant help you.seems am wasting my time on you.this will be my last comment here.
That pdp called thousands of witnesses or brought several evidences means nothing if they cant be compelling or damning.whether apc bring witnesses or evidences doesnt matter.it is now left for pdp the accuser to prove its case and they didnt beyond doubt.only the testimonies of 5 pdp witnesses were taken and they were even originally termed speculstivs and hearsays.adeleke only concentrsted on proving over voting which he failed to prove.
Section 140 says tribunals cannot declare a winner or subtract votes.yusuf alli during the hesring at the appeal coúrt ssid a full supreme court panel has affirmed this section before.the judge asked if the tribunal were aware.this was the turning point.engineer boat was the op who opened that thread.him and the rest of you were mocking me but now all of you are tearful.
Non appearancr or absence of a judge at the sitting is enough to nullify the case.this particular op opened this thread to show us how the supreme court have been ruling when a judge is absence yet you said its rubbish.
the judges did not rule only on non absence but on the 17 units,rerun and other matters.stop wasting my time.commonsense should tell you that for 4 judges out of 5 to rule agsinst Adeleke means that he lost well

. thank you for your contribution
...You are well informed...Many on Nairaland are timewasters....They lack legal comprehension as you have said....I They are unreasonably fanatical . have decided to reserve until after the Supreme court judgement.... Then their eyes must have been open when Adeleke s loss is confirmed.

garfield1:
You are the rubbish fellow,you and adeleke.you call supreme court rulings rubbish and you are hoping for the supreme court to rule in your favor? Only small boys like you allow emotions to always control them.

. You are right my brother... Many on Nairaland do not have o level like Adeleke himself.It is evident in their reasoning. ....Thank you for your good contribution

Johnnyessence:
your hyprocrisy is beyond control .Stop been childish here. Supreme Court will rule based on the tribunal judgment. Just save this post .Thanks .

arguing with you is a waste of time.but ask yourself what does section 140 2 says?