May 15, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2013-05) Legalpedia (SC) 11912 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri May 24, 2013 Suit Number: SC. 153/2013 CORAM PARTIES CHIEF ALEX OLUSOLA OKEPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC […]
CORAM
PARTIES
CHIEF ALEX OLUSOLA OKEPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP] APPELLANTS
DR. RAHMAN OLUSEGUN MIMIKO
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The trial Court (Election petition Tribunal) refused the Appellant’s application for enlargement of time within which to file and use further witness deposition on oath and call additional witness on the ground that the said application was an attempt to surreptitiously amend the petition after the expiration of the time for pleadings prescribed by the Electoral Act. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed thus prompting his further appeal to Supreme Court alongside the 1st Respondent also cross-appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal and struck out the cross-appeal for being academic being predicated on the main appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed and the cross-appeal struck out.?
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not In error and its decision perverse and unreasonable when it failed to apply the principles guiding the grant of application for extension of time as laid down by the Supreme Court in Mobil Oil Nig. Ltd. v. FBIR (1977) 3 SC 53 and Ukwu v. Bunqe (1997) 8 NWLR (PL518) 527 to the consideration of appellants’ application.Considering the fact that the evidence sought to be adduced was covered by the pleadings and given the further facts that the appellants both in the grounds and supporting affidavit to the application generously supplied materials justifying the application for extension of time and leave to adduce further evidence and call additional witness, whether the Court of Appeal was not in error which occasioned miscarriage of justice when it affirmed the decision of the trial court which wrongly treated appellants’ application as one for amendment of the petition which if granted would overreach the respondents without showing or demonstrating how it arrived at the decision.””Having regard to the sui generis nature of an election petition, the provisions of statutes, rules of court and practice directions and the binding decisions of appellate courts, whether the Court of Appeal was not right when it affirmed the decision of the trial tribunal which refused the appellants’ application to file additional or further witness depositions outside the period provided for in the Electoral Act. ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ELECTION-TIME OF ESSENCE IN ELECTION MATTERS
“The appellants had an up-hill task as it is basic that in election matters, time is of essence. This is because election matters are sui generis. They are unlike ordinary civil proceedings without a time bar”. PER FABIYI, JSC
ACADEMIC ISSUES-ATTITUDE OF COURT THERETO
“It is a principle of law long settled that the general attitude of the courts of law is that they are loathe in making pronouncements on academic/hypothetical issues as it does not serve any useful purpose”. PER MUHAMMAD, JSC
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY TRIAL COURT- ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT THERETO
“It is not usual for this court to interfere with exercise of discretion carried out by the two lower courts judicially and judiciously”. PER FABIYI, JSC
ELECTION PETITION-SPECIAL NATURE OF-WHETHER SAME AS CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
“In other words, with Election matters being of special species and sui generis in nature they cannot therefore be treated in the same class like ordinary civil cases. This is trite and settled in view of the Constitutional recognition and the putting in place of special legislations specifically aimed at governing its conduct and procedure”. PER CLARA OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
CASES CITED
Abubakar V. Yar’Adua (2008) 12 SC (Part 11) page 1 at 21Bamaiyi V. A.G. Federation (2001) 12 NWLR (Pf. 727) P. 428 at 497Eperokun v. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.34) 162Eronini v. Iheuko (1989) 2 NSCC (Pt. 1) 503; 513; (1989) 3 SC (Pt. 1)30Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 539) 1007) at 1046Nkwocha v. Gov, of Anambra State (1984) 1 SCNLR 634;P.P.A V. i.N.E.C (2012 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 215 at 236Plateau State V. AGF (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt 967 346at 419Shettima V. Goni (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 413 at 455.Ugwu V. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) P. 367 at 510-511 ?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
S. 285 (5) & (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).S. 14(2) (a)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2011.S. 134 of the Electoral Act, 2011.