ALHAJI MOHAMMED BELLO v GOVERNOR OF GOMBE STATE & ORS
April 28, 2025IBRAHIM ABDULMUMINI ALHAJI VS AHMED MOHAMMED
April 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 15161
In the Court of Appeal
Fri Sep 25, 2015
Suit Number: CA/L/EP/SN/799/15
CORAM
MOHAMMED DANJUMA
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
MRS. OLABISI AYODELE SALIS?PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioners/Appellants together with the Respondents contested the election to the membership of the Senate of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria representing Lagos East Senatorial District. At the conclusion of the election, the Respondent was returned into office after he was declared winner of the election. Dissatisfied with the result of the election, the Petitioners/Appellants challenged same at the National and State House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal (panel 2) Holden at Ikeja, Lagos State. After the close of pleadings, the Petitioners/Appellants apply to the court for the issuance of a pre-hearing Notice Form TF007. The trial Tribunal upon receipt of the appeal dismissed the Petitioners/ Appellants petition for non-compliance with paragraph 18 (1) of the First schedule to the Electoral Act 2010(as amended). The Petitioners/Appellants has appealed to this Court, while the Respondents also cross appealed on grounds that a pre-hearing notice and pre-trial information form cannot be validly issued without a prior application.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed, Cross Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
– Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition as abandoned on the ground that the Appellants’ application for the issuance of pre-hearing Notice was not made within the time stipulated by law Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the (Notice of Appeal). – Whether the trial Tribunal was incompetent to exercise jurisdiction over the petition – Distilled from Ground seven of the Notice of Appeal. In suit No Sc. 85/2014 of 6 – 3 – 15 between Timipre Sylva And 1. Independent National Electoral Commission, 2. Peoples Democratic Party, 3. Gov. Henry Seriake Dickson, reported in (2015) LPELR – 24447 (SC). – Whether the Tribunal was right in placing reliance on Omisore v. Aregbesola Suit No. Sc/204/2015 as providing the procedure for computation of time, under paragraphs 16 and 18 of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)- Whether the procedure used by the Trial Tribunal in the computation of time under paragraph 16 of the First schedule to the Electoral Act as amended in holding that the Petitioners’ Reply to the 2nd Respondent was filed out of time was right.CROSS APPEALIn view of the fact that the only application for the issuance of pre – hearing notice is the one made by the petitioners/1st and 2nd cross – Respondents’ counsel by letter received at the Tribunal on the 28th day of May, 2015, whether the Tribunal was right in holding the 26th day of May, 2015 as the day the application for the issuance of pre hearing notice was made.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COMPUTATION OF TIME IN ELECTION PETITION- IMPORT OF SECTION 15 (4) OF THE INTERPRETATION ACT ON COMPUTATION OF TIME IN ELECTION PETITION
“In the interpretation Act – S. 15 (4) relating to computation of time, for an instance, provides that
“(4) – where by an enactment any act is authorized or required to be done within a particular period which does not exceed six days holidays shall be left out of account in computing the period.(5) In this section “holiday” means a day which is a Sunday or a Public holiday”
However, the clear tenor of the Electoral Act provides for the hearing of petitions de die in diem i.e. from day to day; the service of processes immediately they are received at the registry and the registry being open on all days. PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
JUDICIAL NOTICE – SECTION 122 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011 DOES NOT CONFER ON A COURT THE POWER TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE STATUS OF JUDGES OR MEMBERSHIP OF COURTS
“By Section 122 (J) of the Evidence Act 2011, this court may take Judicial Notice of “the names of the members and officers of the court and of their deputies and subordinate officers and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of all legal practitioners and other persons authorised by law to appear or act before it, this cannot be done here to ascertain that the learned Chairman of the trial Tribunal was a Judge of the Customary Court and not a High court Judge. No book or document necessary has been laid before this court. It was also not led before the trial Tribunal. The challenge cannot be established before this court on the basis of Judicial Notice either, as Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 does not confer on a court the power to take Judicial Notice of Judges and their status or membership of particular courts generally. PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
“In Ogige v. Obiyan (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt.524)178 it was held that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings up to the final determination of an appeal by the Highest court of the land. The Judge can also raise same suo motu at any stage. This is so because it is an issue which goes to the root of the matter as to sustain or nullify the order or decision made see Obikoya v The Registrar of companies (1975) 4sc 31; Pan Asian Co. Ltd v. NICON (1982) 9 sc1; Tukur v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117)”PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION – OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM IS FUNDAMENTAL.
“However, it must be noted that because jurisdiction is a threshold issue in any adjudication, an objection to the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a claim is fundamental. For if there is no jurisdiction, the proceedings thereafter is a nullity, however well conducted and even if the parties submit to jurisdiction. PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
JUDICIAL NOTICE – SECTION 122 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011 DOES NOT CONFER ON A COURT THE POWER TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE STATUS OF JUDGES OR MEMBERSHIP OF COURTS
“By Section 122 (J) of the Evidence Act 2011, this court may take Judicial Notice of “the names of the members and officers of the court and of their deputies and subordinate officers and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of all legal practitioners and other persons authorised by law to appear or act before it, this cannot be done here to ascertain that the learned Chairman of the trial Tribunal was a Judge of the Customary Court and not a High court Judge. No book or document necessary has been laid before this court. It was also not led before the trial Tribunal. The challenge cannot be established before this court on the basis of Judicial Notice either, as Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 does not confer on a court the power to take Judicial Notice of Judges and their status or membership of particular courts generally. PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION – OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM IS FUNDAMENTAL.
“However, it must be noted that because jurisdiction is a threshold issue in any adjudication, an objection to the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a claim is fundamental. For if there is no jurisdiction, the proceedings thereafter is a nullity, however well conducted and even if the parties submit to jurisdiction. PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
“In Ogige v. Obiyan (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt.524)178 it was held that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings up to the final determination of an appeal by the Highest court of the land. The Judge can also raise same suo motu at any stage. This is so because it is an issue which goes to the root of the matter as to sustain or nullify the order or decision made see Obikoya v The Registrar of companies (1975) 4sc 31; Pan Asian Co. Ltd v. NICON (1982) 9 sc1; Tukur v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117)”PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
COMPUTATION OF TIME IN ELECTION PETITION- IMPORT OF SECTION 15 (4) OF THE INTERPRETATION ACT ON COMPUTATION OF TIME IN ELECTION PETITION
“In the interpretation Act – S. 15 (4) relating to computation of time, for an instance, provides that
“(4) – where by an enactment any act is authorized or required to be done within a particular period which does not exceed six days holidays shall be left out of account in computing the period.(5) In this section “holiday” means a day which is a Sunday or a Public holiday”
However, the clear tenor of the Electoral Act provides for the hearing of petitions de die in diem i.e. from day to day; the service of processes immediately they are received at the registry and the registry being open on all days. PER. M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999Court of Appeal Act 2004Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions, 2011Evidence Act 2011Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2004Interpretation Act (1964 No.17), Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
