CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

SAIDU HARUNA APPELLANTS

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant brought this application pursuant to Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 2004, Order 2, Rules 28(1) – 29(1) & (2), 2, Order 10 Rule 1(1) Supreme Court Rules, 1999, S.(1), S.36(1), S.17(1), (2)(a) and (e) and S.294(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Article 3 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR); (Ratification Enforcement Act) 1990 and the inherent jurisdiction of this court, seeking an Order formally nullifying or setting aside the judgment and “Orders” “given” on July 6, 2012, and an Order directing that Appeal No SC.34/2005 be reconsidered by a different panel of Justices of this honourable court. The grounds on which the Appellant sought the reliefs are that the learned justices prevented counsel to the Appellants to argue the Appellant’s appeal contrary to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the constitution, the African Charter on people & Human Rights and numerous extant decisions of the Supreme Court, at the hearing of SC.34/2005 and as manifested in the lead ‘Judgment’, the court completely disregarded the Notice of Appeal, as it prevented arguments, which would have enabled it to truly resolve all the issues which arose in the appeal for decision in accordance with correct legal principles to enable it end up with an ultimate verdict that should flow logically, and that it is not the whole panel that heard the appeal that provided their judgments as strictly stipulated by the constitution, but instead three justices delivered and furnished their judgment while the justice that presided, who had even retired, purportedly delivered and furnished an undated judgment over a month after it was supposed to be delivered and furnished; as bad, the fifth panelist is yet to furnish his judgment five months after he is supposed to so do.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

None

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

AFFIDAVIT – NEED FOR DEPOSITIONS IN AN AFFIDAVIT TO COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 115(1) – (3) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011

---

“This responsibility is to ascertain the veracity or authenticity of the facts alleged therein. The other aspect being whether the depositions are in compliance with Sections 115(1) – (3) of the Evidence Act 2011. The reason for this is the fact that if the depositions do not meet with the conditions stipulated in that relevant Evidence Act provision then the paragraphs containing those offending averments go to no issue since they would be incurably defective and unusable. I shall quote some of these relevant sections of the Evidence Act which are thus:
“115 (1) Every affidavit used in the court shall contain only a statement of fact and circumstances to which the witness deposes either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.”
“2 An affidavit shall not contain extraneous matter, by way of objection, prayer or legal argument or conclusion”
“3. When a person deposes to his belief in any matter of tact, and his belief is derived from any source other than his own personal knowledge, he shall set forth explicitly the facts and circumstances forming the ground of his belief.”
“4. When such belief is derived from information received from another person, the name of his informant shall be stated and reasonable particulars shall be given respecting the informant and the time, place and circumstances of the information.”
These provisions above are impari materia with Sections 86, 87, 88, and 89 of the revised edition of the Evidence Act”. –

---

AFFIDAVIT – WHETHER A COURT CAN EVALUATE CARELESS TALKS CONTAINED IN AN AFFIDAVIT

---

“The averments descended into the realm of rumour mongering or plain gossiping and infringed what the Evidence Act provided should not be found if an affidavit is not to be put at risk. There is even nothing on which the court can make a favourable ascertainment of the veracity or authenticity of the facts alleged therein. This is because the court cannot utilise a careless talk or gossip without information of how it was derived to make any evaluation. In fact there is nothing on which an evaluation can be based. See Okoye & Anor v. Centrepoint Merchant Bank Ltd. (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1110) 335 at 362.

---

AFFIDAVITS – ATTITUDE OF COURT TO PARAGRAPHS OF AN AFFIDAVIT WITH NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE

---

“I would like to refer to the dicta of this court on a valid affidavit within the ambit of Section 115 Evidence Act impari materia to Sections 86-89 of the Evidence Act before amendment. This court has held time without number that paragraphs of the affidavit which lack evidential value or had infractions such as I had mentioned above, the court has no time to waste with but to strike those paragraphs out or attach no weight to them. This was what this court per Kutigi JSC (as he then was) emphasized in Josien Holdings Ltd & Ors v Lornamead Ltd & Anor (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.371) 254 at 264; Dr. Oladipo Maia v Mr. Costa Samouris (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.765) 78 at 102. –

---

QUORUM OF THE SUPREME COURT –WHEN IS THE SUPREME COURT DULY CONSTITUTED?

---

“Now coming to the matter of whether the quorum was not met at the time the appeal was heard and at the time the judgment was delivered. This is an area well covered by the provisions of Section 294 of the Constitution which would need to be quoted verbatim hereunder for clarity and it is thus:
“294(1): Every court established under the Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the case or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof;
2. Each Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeal shall express and deliver his opinion in writing or may state in writing that he adopts the opinion of any other justice who delivers a written opinion; Provided that it shall not be necessary for all the justices who heard a case or matter to be present when judgment is to be delivered and the opinion of a justice may be pronounced or read by any other justice whether or not he was present at the hearing;
3. A decision of a court consisting of more than one judge shall be determined by the opinion of the majority of its members;
4. For the purpose of delivering its decision under this section, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal shall be deemed to be duly constituted if at least one member of that court sits for that purpose;
5. The decision of a court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section unless the court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof;
6. As soon as possible after hearing and deciding any case in which it has been determined or observed that there was non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the person presiding at the sitting of the court shall send a report on the case to the Chairman of the National Judicial Council who shall keep the Council informed of such action as the Council may deem it”.
I need to restate the provisions of Section 234 of the 1999 Constitution which is germane to the discourse on ground. It provides thus:
“For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by this Constitution or any law, the Supreme Court shall be duly constituted if it consists of not less than five Justices of the Supreme Court”. –

---

JUDGMENT OF COURT – WHETHER A FAILURE TO SIGN THE CONTRIBUTING JUDGMENT AFFECTS THE VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

---

“Furthermore, apart from the date at the top of the judgment, there is nothing like signing with date by the justice as canvassed by applicants’ Senior Advocate. The contributing judgments certified true copies thereof whether signed or unsigned cannot affect the validity of the judgment of the court. Therefore, the judicial authorities cited by the applicants such as Ifezue v Mbadugha (1984) 1 SC NLR 427; Osafie v. Odi (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.137) 130; Ogboru v. Udugban (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt.1131) 357 are not relevant since the matter clearly is not an oral judgment nor an invalid one made without the appropriate quorum or lack of jurisdiction. –

---

JUDGMENT OF COURT – WHETHER A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF A JUDGMENT MUST BE SIGNED THE SAME WAY AS THE ORIGINAL

---

“It is the certification by the appropriate officer that makes the document authentic. If applicants seriously contend that the judgment of His Lordship was not signed, the proper thing to do to establish that fact is to exhibit the original copy of the judgment, not a certified true copy. There is also the contention that the said judgment is not dated. That is very much untrue. It is settled law that a document speaks for itself”. –

---

SUPREME COURT – GENERAL POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN APPEALS

---

“In the main, the application is brought pursuant to Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 2004 which is headed: “General power of the Supreme Court”. It provides:
“S.22 The Supreme Court may, from time to time, make any order necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the appeal, and may amend any defect or error in the record of appeal and may direct the Court below to inquire into and certify its findings on any question which the Supreme Court thinks fit to determine before final judgment in the appeal and may make an interim order or grant any injunction which the Court below is authorised to make or grant and may direct any necessary inquiries or account to be made or taken and generally shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted and prosecuted in the Supreme Court as a Court of first instance and may rehear the case in whole or in part or may remit it to the Court below for the purpose of such re-hearing or may give such other directions as to the manner in which the Court below shall deal with the case in accordance with the powers of that Court.”
The prolix provision leaves no one in doubt that the power so conferred in the Supreme Court is exercisable only in relation to a pending appeal. The Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act when there is no appeal pending. –

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR); (Ratification Enforcement Act) 1990|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|Evidence Act, 2011|Supreme Court Act, 2004|Supreme Court Rules, 1999|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT