Abdulrahman Abubakar & Anor V. Senator Aidoko Ali Usman & Ors (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

My Lords, what prompted this appeal was the Ruling of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the lower Court”) delivered on February 11, 2016. The said Ruling was the lower Court’s determination of the questions canvassed in a Motion on Notice wherein the appellants in this appeal entreated it with the following supplications:

“1. An order correcting clerical mistakes/errors in the orders made in the Judgment of this Honorable Court delivered on the 2nd of December, 2015 and the Enrolled Order issued on the 10th December 2015 in Appeal No. CA/A/EPT/609/2015 Abdulrahman Abubakar and Anor Vs. Senator Attai Aldoko Usman and 3 others to give effect to the full meaning and the intention of the Court in allowing the appeal of the applicants.

2. An order correcting or varying the consequential orders in the judgment of this Honorable Court delivered on the 2nd December, 2015 and the Enrolled Order of this Court issued to the Applicants on 10th, December, 2015 in Appeal No. CA/A/EPT/609/2015 and 3 others by deleting the 3rd consequential

1

order therein and replacing same with consequential order affirming the election and return of the 1st Applicant as Senator representing Kogi East Senatorial District, the order nullify the election of the 1st applicant and ordering for fresh election within 90 days having been made without jurisdiction.

3. An order deleting the word “partially” from the resolution of issue one in the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the 2nd December 2015 in Appeal No. CA/A/EPT/609/2015 Abdulrahman Abubakar and Anor Vs. Senator Attai Aidoko Usman and 3 Others by affirming the election and return of the 1st Applicant to give effect to the full meaning and the intention of the Court in resolving issue one in favour of the Applicants, this Honorable Court having held and found at page 19 of the judgment, Exhibit JSO annexed to the affidavit thus:

By the provision of Paragraph 4(3) (a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended a petition shall conclude with a prayer or prayers. It is not difficult to see from the petition that relief A is standing alone.”

That there is no prayer that the election be nullified. There is no prayer

2

that the 1st Respondent be declared as duly elected. Yet the Tribunal not only nullified the election but proceeded to declare the 1st Respondent duly elected.

4. THE ALTERNATIVE

An order extending time within which the Applicants herein may/can apply to set aside the consequential orders made in the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the 2nd December, 2015 and the Enrolled Order issued on the 17th December, 2015 in Appeal No. CA/A/EPT/609/2015 on the grounds that the said consequential order and Enrolled orders were made without jurisdiction.

5. An order setting aside the consequential orders made in the lodgment of this Honorable Court delivered on the 2nd December, 2015 and Enrolled Order issued on the 17th of December, 2015 in Appeal No. CA/A/EPT/609/2015 on the grounds that the said consequential and enrolled orders were made without jurisdiction.
6. An order setting aside the letter written by the Deputy Chief Registrar Court of Appeal, Abuja judicial Division and dated 23rd December, 2015 which was addressed to the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission on ground that the said letter was issued without

3

jurisdiction.

7. An order setting aside the consequential orders in the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the 2nd December, 2015 and the enrolled Order of this Honourable Court issued to the Applicants on 10th December, 2015 in Appeal No. CA/A/EPT/609/2015 which nullified the election of the 1st Applicant and ordered for fresh election within 90 days same having been made without jurisdiction.

And for such further order or other orders as the Honourable Court might deem fit to make in the circumstance.”

In his swift and predictable response to the reliefs, Patrick I. N Ikwueto, SAN, for the respondents, contended inter alia that the lower Court was denuded of jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its judgment, citing Section 246 (3) of the Constitution (supra). In its said Ruling, the lower Court agreed with the submission of Ikwueto, SAN, holding that ‘…since this Court lacks jurisdiction to tamper with its judgment delivered on 2nd December, 2015, the application lacks merit and it is struck out.” [page 35] of the record].