•Supreme Court fixes judgment for February 7
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Monday joined forces with the sacked Governor of Rivers State, Celestine Omehia to ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeals filed by the incumbent governor, Chibuike Amaechi and a chieftain of the party, Cyprian Chukwu, in relation to the renewed dispute over Amaechi’s tenure.
Amaechi and Chukwu, are by their appeals before the apex court, seeking to void the leave granted Omehia by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to appeal an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja in respect of when Amaechi’s first tenure ought to have ended.
Chukwu had in 2010 applied to the Federal High Court, Abuja, for an interpretation of the 2007 judgment by the Supreme Court in determining when the governorship election was due in Rivers State in 2011.Omehia was removed from office as the Rivers State governor in October 2007 on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment, thus paving the way for Amaechi to assume office.
In deciding Chukwu’s case, Justice Abdulkadir Abdul- Kafarati of the Federal High Court, held that by virtue of the Supreme Court’s judgment, Amaechi’s first tenure ended on May 28, 2011 and not in October 2011.
Justice Abdul-Kafarati held that since the Supreme Court had ruled that it was the PDP that won the election, and the election having not been set aside, the tenure began to run on May 29, 2007 even though Omehia wrongly occupied the office.
Dissatisfied, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appealed the judgment by Justice Abdul-Kafarati. Shortly after, Omehia, who was not a party in the suit at the trial court, applied to the Court of Appeal to be made a party to enable him also appeal the judgment.
Despite opposition by Amaechi and Chukwu, the Court of Appeal granted Omehia’s prayer a decision they (Amaechi and Chukwu) found objectionable and consequently appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the rationale upon which the Appeal Court allowed Omehia to be joined to the suit.
Yesterday, the parties adopted their briefs of argument, following which the court adjourned to February 7 next year for judgment.
The PDP had at the Court of Appeal, initially opposed Omehia’s move to be made a party to the suit, but yesterday made a U-turn and chose to side with Omehia and urged the court to dismiss both appeals.
Lawyers to Amaechi and Chukwu, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and Rickey Tarfa (SAN), respectively, drew the Supreme Court’s attention to a change in the position of the lawyer representing the PDP, Olusola Oke.
Fagbemi and Tarfa wondered why Oke appeared to have changed his position, having earlier aligned with them at the lower courts.
Oke had while adopting his brief urged the court to dismiss both appeals and uphold the decision of the appellate court, which granted Omehia leave to appeal the judgment by Justice Abdul-Kafarati.
He urged the Supreme Court to ignore the technicalities raised by the appellants in seeking to void the leave granted Omehia.
Oke argued that the Court of Appeal was in order in granting Omehia leave.
Earlier, Tarfa had urged the court to allow the appeal and void the leave granted Omehia on the grounds that the appellate court acted in error.
He argued that Omehia did not place sufficient materials before the court to warrant the leave granted him.
Tarfa further argued that Omehia’s application was wrongly filed because he applied for permission about 200 days after the trial court delivered its judgment.
Fagbemi argued that as an interested party, who sought to appeal the decision of a case that he did not participate in at the trial stage, Omehia failed to comply with the necessary constitutional requirements.
He also queried Omehia’s locus to appeal the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that he failed to satisfy the court that he had a special interest to protect.
He argued that Omehia’s claim of being interested in contesting the 2011 governorship election was not sufficient grounds for the appellate court to have granted him leave because he was just one out of the several people who were interested in contesting the election.
Fagbemi argued that Omehia hid from the court the fact that he actually participated in the 2011 election under the banner of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA).
He contended that having enjoyed the benefit of the trial court’s judgment by contesting the 2011 governorship under APGA, he could not turn around to attack the same judgment.
Fagbemi also argued that Omehia was left with no interest to protect, having contested the 2011 election under another party.
Omehia’s lawyer, Nnaemeka Udechukwu (SAN) argued in a similar manner as Oke and prayed the court to dismiss the appeals.
Udechukwu said that Omehia was a party in the Supreme Court judgment which the high court interpreted and that his client was adversely affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Source: Thisday
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Monday joined forces with the sacked Governor of Rivers State, Celestine Omehia to ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeals filed by the incumbent governor, Chibuike Amaechi and a chieftain of the party, Cyprian Chukwu, in relation to the renewed dispute over Amaechi’s tenure.
Amaechi and Chukwu, are by their appeals before the apex court, seeking to void the leave granted Omehia by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to appeal an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja in respect of when Amaechi’s first tenure ought to have ended.
Chukwu had in 2010 applied to the Federal High Court, Abuja, for an interpretation of the 2007 judgment by the Supreme Court in determining when the governorship election was due in Rivers State in 2011.Omehia was removed from office as the Rivers State governor in October 2007 on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment, thus paving the way for Amaechi to assume office.
In deciding Chukwu’s case, Justice Abdulkadir Abdul- Kafarati of the Federal High Court, held that by virtue of the Supreme Court’s judgment, Amaechi’s first tenure ended on May 28, 2011 and not in October 2011.
Justice Abdul-Kafarati held that since the Supreme Court had ruled that it was the PDP that won the election, and the election having not been set aside, the tenure began to run on May 29, 2007 even though Omehia wrongly occupied the office.
Dissatisfied, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appealed the judgment by Justice Abdul-Kafarati. Shortly after, Omehia, who was not a party in the suit at the trial court, applied to the Court of Appeal to be made a party to enable him also appeal the judgment.
Despite opposition by Amaechi and Chukwu, the Court of Appeal granted Omehia’s prayer a decision they (Amaechi and Chukwu) found objectionable and consequently appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the rationale upon which the Appeal Court allowed Omehia to be joined to the suit.
Yesterday, the parties adopted their briefs of argument, following which the court adjourned to February 7 next year for judgment.
The PDP had at the Court of Appeal, initially opposed Omehia’s move to be made a party to the suit, but yesterday made a U-turn and chose to side with Omehia and urged the court to dismiss both appeals.
Lawyers to Amaechi and Chukwu, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and Rickey Tarfa (SAN), respectively, drew the Supreme Court’s attention to a change in the position of the lawyer representing the PDP, Olusola Oke.
Fagbemi and Tarfa wondered why Oke appeared to have changed his position, having earlier aligned with them at the lower courts.
Oke had while adopting his brief urged the court to dismiss both appeals and uphold the decision of the appellate court, which granted Omehia leave to appeal the judgment by Justice Abdul-Kafarati.
He urged the Supreme Court to ignore the technicalities raised by the appellants in seeking to void the leave granted Omehia.
Oke argued that the Court of Appeal was in order in granting Omehia leave.
Earlier, Tarfa had urged the court to allow the appeal and void the leave granted Omehia on the grounds that the appellate court acted in error.
He argued that Omehia did not place sufficient materials before the court to warrant the leave granted him.
Tarfa further argued that Omehia’s application was wrongly filed because he applied for permission about 200 days after the trial court delivered its judgment.
Fagbemi argued that as an interested party, who sought to appeal the decision of a case that he did not participate in at the trial stage, Omehia failed to comply with the necessary constitutional requirements.
He also queried Omehia’s locus to appeal the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that he failed to satisfy the court that he had a special interest to protect.
He argued that Omehia’s claim of being interested in contesting the 2011 governorship election was not sufficient grounds for the appellate court to have granted him leave because he was just one out of the several people who were interested in contesting the election.
Fagbemi argued that Omehia hid from the court the fact that he actually participated in the 2011 election under the banner of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA).
He contended that having enjoyed the benefit of the trial court’s judgment by contesting the 2011 governorship under APGA, he could not turn around to attack the same judgment.
Fagbemi also argued that Omehia was left with no interest to protect, having contested the 2011 election under another party.
Omehia’s lawyer, Nnaemeka Udechukwu (SAN) argued in a similar manner as Oke and prayed the court to dismiss the appeals.
Udechukwu said that Omehia was a party in the Supreme Court judgment which the high court interpreted and that his client was adversely affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Source: Thisday
