Alhaji Abdullahi Adamu & Ors. V. Ahmed Abdullahi Abokie & Anor (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Ruling)

On 28/06/2011 the National Assembly/Legislative Houses of Assemble Election petition Tribunal (here in referred to as the tribunal) delivered its ruling and set aside its earlier decision of 10/06/2011, dismissing the 1st and 2nd petitioner’s respondents’ petition NO:EPT/NS/NAS/2/2011, and re-listed the petition.

Being dis-satisfied with the ruling, the 1st and 2nd respondents in the petition filed their appeal to this Court on 12/07/2011 and since then the 1st and 2nd appellants did not take any step to prosecute this appeal.

By their motion dated and filed on 09/09/2011 asked the following:

1. An order enlarging the time within which the 1st and 2nd respondents/appellants/applicants may compile and transmit an additional record of appeal.
2. An order deeming the additional record of appeal already compiled and transmitted as having been properly compiled and transmitted, appropriately fees having been paid,
3. An order for leave to argue the 1st and 2nd respondents/appellants/applicants’ appeal filed vide Exhibit ‘A’ using the record of appeal transmitted in the instant appeal, viz Appeal NO:CA/MK/EPT/08/2011 and the additional records of appeal, as per Exhibit ‘A’

The ground for the above reliefs were stated in the motion paper. The motion is supported by 14 paragraphs affidavit and a copy of the additional record of appeal which is marked as Exhibit ‘A’

In the same vain, another application NO:CA/MK/NS/NAS/B/2011 was filed yesterday, 22/09/2011 seeking the following reliefs:

1. An order enlarging the time within which the appellants may file and serve their appellants brief of argument.
2. An order deeming as duly filed and served the appellants brief of argument filed on 09/09/2011 and served, as having been properly filed and served, appropriately fees having been paid.

The grounds for the above reliefs were stated on the body of the motion papers. This motion is supported by 9 paragraphs affidavit and a further and better affidavit of 11 paragraphs.

The 1st and 2nd respondents in response filed a notice of preliminary objection with its grounds in 9 paragraphs. Before the 1st motion was moved the 1st and 2nd respondents’ learned Senior Counsel, Yahaya Mahmood, (SAN) informs us that he is vehemently opposing the application on point of law.

In his oral objection on point of law, he urged this Court to strike out the 1st and 2nd Respondents/appellants/applicants’ application in its entirety, Grounds upon which he opposed the hearing of the application was that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the applications by virtue of Section 258 (7) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

In his argument the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the decision of the Tribunal appealed against and upon which they sought leave of this Court to compile and transmit the additional record of appeal, was made on 28/06/2011 and now is more than 60 days.

In her response, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents/appellants/applicants Mrs Olabisi O. Soyebo, (SAN) submitted that she was taken by surprise and relying on Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules she urged us to dismiss the oral objection of the 1st and 2nd respondents, learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd-13th respondents’ also urged us to dismiss the objection of the 1st and 2nd respondents’ Senior Counsel.

The preliminary objection raised by the 1st and 2nd respondent in summary is whether or not this Court is competent to entertain this application in the circumstance that the ruling of the tribunal appealed against was made 28/06/2011 i.e. more than 60 days after the decision.

I wish to point out that issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Since jurisdiction is regarded as a threshold issue and a life line for continuing any proceeding, objections to the jurisdiction ought to be taken at the earliest opportunity as in being done in this case in hand. This is because any step taken in the proceedings where there is no jurisdiction the entire proceedings are nullity no matter how brilliantly handle or concluded. I place reliance on Bakare Vs A.G. Federation (1990) 5 NWLR (pt. 152) 516.From the record of appeal it is evident that he applicants notice of appeal was filed on 12/07/2011 and the appeal was against the ruling of the Tribunal delivered on 28/06/2011.

Since then the applicants did not file the record of appeal or filed their brief of argument. In short, no any step taken by the applicants to prosecute this appeal until 09/09/2011 and 22/09/2011when the applicants filed the motions. From 28/06/2011 – 09/09/2011 is more than 60 days. That section 285 (7) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is clear and unequivocal and its says: