Barr. Mohammed Bello Mustapha V. Mr. Danbaba Danfulani Suntai (Governor Of Taraba State) & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SOTONYE DENTON WEST,J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Ruling/Judgment)

The Appellant’s exparte application is a tripod upon which the main appeal can stand and be that the case, lam obliged to consider the application before the main appeal.

The Appellant’s exparte application is dated 17th of May, 2013 and filed on the 28th May, 2013 and was brought pursuant to Order 4 Rule 1, Order 6 Rule 2(1) Order 7 Rule 4, Order 18 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 and under the inherent powers of this court.

By the application, the Appellant prayed for the following orders:

1. An order granting leave to the applicants to appeal against the judgment/ruling/final decision of the Taraba State High Court of Justice No. 1 Jalingo (copy attached as exhibit “A”) delivered by Hon. Justice Josephine Y. Tuktur, the Chief Judge, on the 27th of March, 2013 over an exparte motion for leave to apply for orders of mandamus in the interest of Justice.
2. An order deeming the notice of appeal of the Appellant/Applicant dated the 28th day of March, 2013 but filed on the 9th of April, 2013 (copy attached as exhibit “B” and contained in the transmitted record of appeal) and the Appellants brief of argument, already filed on the 1st of May, 2013 as properly filed having paid the necessary filing fees, in the interest of Justice.
3. An order departing from the rules of the court, to dispense with the Respondents brief of argument, as the ruling over the motion appealed against was heard and determined exparte and was refused/struck out before the substantive application could have been filed and the Respondents brief’s not necessary.
4. An order that applicant’s appeal against the Judgment/Ruling/final decision of the Taraba State High Court of Justice Nos. 1 Jalingo delivered by Hon. Justice Josephine Y. Tuktur, the Chief Judge, on the 27th May, 2013 over an exparte motion for leave to apply for order of mandamus be heard exparte in the interest of justice.
5. Any other order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case. Accompanied to the motion is a 4 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Blessing Gabriel, a litigation secretary in the office of the Applicant’s Counsel.

In support of this application, is a four paragraphs affidavit wherein the deponent Blessing Gabriel, Litigation Secretary of No. 5, Tanko Street, Sabon Gari, Zaria, do hereby make Oath and state as follows:-

I Blessing Gabriel, Female, Adult, Christian, Nigerian, Litigations Secretary, resident at No.5, Tanko Street, Sabon Gari, Zaria, do hereby make Oath and state as follows:-

That I am the Litigations Secretary in the Chambers of Bello Ibrahim & Co., Applicant’s Counsel, and by my said position, i am conversant with the facts leading to this application.

1. That I have the authority of the Applicants and the authority of Bello Ibrahim Esq., their Counsel to depose and swear to this affidavit.
2. That I was informed by the Applicant’s Counsel, Bello Ibrahim Esq., on the 16th day of May, 2013 at the hour of 4:30pm at our office No. 45, New Jos Road, Tudun Wada, Zaria, in the circumstances of preparing this application; which information he got from the Applicant’s briefing, and I verily believe same as true, as follows:-

a. That the Appellants’ case at the lower Court was, in the main, for leave to apply for Orders of Mandamus to issue against the Respondents, especially the 4th Respondent, to discharge his constitutional duties to set, establish and appoint medical panel to determine the medical fitness of the 1st Respondent to discharge the functions of the Governor of Taraba State.

b. That the motion seeking for the leave of the lower court was heard exparte and the Respondents were not served with any process, but the motion was struck out.

c. That it was against the ruling of the Court, which is compiled and transmitted to this court along with the Appellants’ brief of argument and no Respondents’ brief is going to be filed.

d. That it will serve the interest of justice to depart from the requirements of the rules of this Court in respect of filing of the Respondent’s brief before the hearing of the appeal.

e. That the interest of justice will best be served to hear this appeal exparte without the Respondents’ brief of argument, as the initial case was heard as a motion exparte seeking for leave to apply for judicial review; orders of mandamus.

f. That the Appellants have long ago filed their brief of argument, seeking for a date and time to hear and argue the appeal.

g. That the Respondents will not be prejudiced by the grant of this application.