Advertisements

SIX INSTANCES WHEN THE SUPREME COURT BARED ITS FANGS AND DESCENDED HEAVILY ON SENIOR COUNSEL FOR PRESENTING FRIVOLOUS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW!

Here are six clear instances between 2007 and 2020 (including the most recent Bayelsa review case) when the Supreme Court was angry and descended heavily on lawyers who brought frivolus applications for review.

For further reading see 👉🏿 Robert Egbe,
Judicial review: When Supreme Court took lawyers to the cleaners https://thenationonlineng.net/judicial-review-when-supreme-court-took-lawyers-to-the-cleaners/

========

*⚖ 1. THE 2007- 2009 OMEHIA V AMAECHI CASE*

The Supreme Court berated the Counsel to former Rivers State Governor Celestine Omehia, when he sought a review of the Supreme Court judgment delivered on October 25, 2007, which replaced him with Rotimi Amaechi.

In December 2006, Amaechi contested and won the PDP primaries, but his name was substituted with Omehia’s.

In 2007, Amaechi filed a suit challenging the decision. The Supreme Court held that Amaechi was wrongly substituted with Omehia. It declared Amaechi as the Governor.

Omehia’s counsel, James Esike, argued that the verdict was without jurisdiction as the highest court made an order not sought for.

On November 2, 2009, the apex court dismissed Omehia’s application for a review of its judgment and awarded N100, 000 cost against him.

Katsina-Alu, CJN, (as he then was) told the Counsel on record:

“In my view, your action here is serious professional misconduct. We have given our decision two years ago and you are here asking us to review it.

Even if we stay here till December, you will get nothing. At best, you can attract punitive damages.

Whether right or wrong, that judgment stands. You are treading a dangerous ground by asking us to reverse ourselves.

We have no right to sit on appeal over our decision. Our judgment is not a nullity and you can go on and appeal to GOD.”

*⚖ 2. THE 2007 UBA V OBI CASE*

Chief Andy Uba and others twice sought a reversal of the Supreme Court judgment of June 14, 2007, which validated Peter Obi’s status as Governor of Anambra State.

Dismissing the application, Katsina-Alu, JSC, (as he then was), said hearing the applications would amount to a wild goose chase.

At Uba’s second attempt, the Supreme Court said the application was a “thorough abuse of the judicial process.”
Kutigi CJN (as he then was) held inter alia:

“This court held in its earlier judgment that the notice of appeal filed by Peter Obi at the Court of Appeal was valid.

Yet, after our judgment, the applicant went straight back to the trial court to ask it to void the same notice of appeal which this court had declared valid. When he failed, he went back to the Court of Appeal and failed and has returned to us.

What kind of country is this where Senior Advocates of Nigeria are used to mess up the judiciary?

We will not allow this kind of practice. This is wrong.

The appellant has been shuttling from one court to another on a matter that the Supreme Court had already delivered judgment.

If the Supreme Court makes a mistake, there are procedures of correcting the mistakes; not this way, and we will not allow it.”

*⚖ 3. THE 2011 DINGYADI V WAMMAKO CASE*

Dingyadi v Wamakko which was delivered on April 8, 2011 is another case where the apex court refused to review its verdict.

The matter was between Muhammadu Dingyadi of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) and Aliyu Wamakko of the PDP over the Sokoto State Governorship tussle.

The lead counsel for the appellants in the case were Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN and Mr. Rickey Tarfa, SAN.

Adekeye, JSC, who delivered the lead ruling, said: “Any request by a court for a departure or overruling or re-visiting or reviewing or setting aside its previous decision will jeopardize the stable rules of judicial precedent – stare decisis.

“This is a basic reason why the courts particularly the Supreme Court may not find it easy to readily yield to such invitation.

“I hold that the application lacks merit and it must be dismissed in its entirety. There must be an end to litigation. This court is the final court in this country under the Constitution.

The Court of Appeal and all the lower courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is the mirror for viewing the sacred temple of justice.”

*⚖ 4. THE 2014 OGBORU V UDUAGHAN CASE*

In 2014, former Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) Governorship candidate in Delta State, Chief Great Ogboru, had, through his counsel Dr Dickson Osuala, sought a review of the judgment which upheld former Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan’s victory.

Osuala claimed that Section 285 (7) of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court relied on to dismiss his client’s case, was “fraudulently inserted by the National Assembly”, and that its addition did not follow due process.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case and awarded N8Million cost to Uduaghan.

Onnoghen JSC (as he then was) held as follows-
“The said N8million is awarded as cost against the person of Dr Osuala and is to be paid from his pocket to the respondents.

“The plaintiff, through his Counsel, wants to resurrect a dead and buried horse.”

Significantly, Ogboru twice failed in his attempt to have the judgment reviewed.

*⚖ 5. The 2019 ZAMFARA CASE*

One of the most recent examples of a failed attempt to have a judgment reversed involves the APC and its candidates in the last Zamfara State elections.

On 22nd July 2019, the Supreme Court rejected a request to review its 24th May 2019 judgment voiding APC’s participation in the polls.

A five-man panel, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, struck out the application filed on behalf of APC and its candidates by Robert Clarke (SAN).

Clarke SAN had argued that the application was for the Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment which transferred APC’s victory to PDP, which came second in the poll.

But, the Supreme Court Justices faulted the application, saying the APC and other applicants did not provide a valid basis for a review.

Justice Ejembi Eko noted that the application was wrongly brought under Order 8, Rule16 of the Supreme Court’s Rules.

Justice Amina Augie noted that the grounds on which the application was brought did not qualify for the court to review its earlier decision.

Pointedly, Justices Okoro and Sanusi noted that since the case, on which the earlier judgment was given, was a pre-election case for which the Constitution allows the Supreme Court 60 days to determine, the court no longer had jurisdiction to revisit the case.

Justice Rhodes-Vivour said:

“The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the matter because anything that has to do with pre-election matter must be brought within 60 days after a decision had been delivered in the lower court, being the Court of Appeal.

We don’t seat on appeal over our own decision. We have no jurisdiction over this matter.”

*⚖ 6. THE 2020 BAYELSA GUBER REVIEW CASE*

The Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling in February 2020 had unkind words for bith Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, and Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN as they came down heavily on the legal giants, both counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and David Lyon, after dismissing their application for a review of its verdict on the Bayelsa State governorship election.

The Supreme Court Justices were so angry that they ordered the lawyers to pay N10 million each to each of the three respondents from their own pockets.

The seven-man panel led by Sylvester Ngwuta dismissed the two applications for lacking in merit.

Justice Amina Augie while delivering the verdict said the request to review the judgment was vexatious, frivolous, regrettable and a deliberate desecration of the judiciary.

“I cannot believe, and with tears in my eye, I say I cannot believe that in my life time, I will see very senior members of the Bar, bring applications of this nature to this court, which are aimed at desecrating the sanctity of this court, foul its well-known principle that the decision of this court is final and destroying the esteem in which this court is held.

“The end result of the foregoing is that these are applications are vexatious, they are frivolous and they amount to a gross abuse of the court process,” Justice Augie said.

Other members of the panel included Justices Ngwuta, Mary Odili, Olukayode Ariwoola, John Okoro, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Ejembi Eko and they all agreed with the lead ruling stating emphatically that no force on earth can reverse the verdict of the Supreme Court as a court of final appeal.

This Bayelsa decision is the most recent and certainly will not be the last as we make progress.
A new normal is possible!
🖋
*Prof Obiaraeri is my name, the ☆☆☆☆☆ 5-Star Civilian General etc.*

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: