Triumph for Wamakko at Supreme Court
In the unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Christopher. M. Chukwuma-Eneh, the five justices of the apex court that sat on the panel also dismissed the appeal filed between the two parties at the Court of Appeal Sokoto in Appeal No. CA/S/EP/GOV/10/2009 as an abuse of court process, multiplicity of actions and forum-shopping. The Court […]
In the unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Christopher. M. Chukwuma-Eneh, the five justices of the apex court that sat on the panel also dismissed the appeal filed between the two parties at the Court of Appeal Sokoto in Appeal No. CA/S/EP/GOV/10/2009 as an abuse of court process, multiplicity of actions and forum-shopping.
The Court held that the relief sought by Dingyadi at the Court of Appeal in Sokoto and Abuja are the same. The panel said when a party institutes “frivolous, vexatious and oppressive actions” as in this case, the Supreme Court “has the power to treat the acts as contemptuous of the court”.
Reacting to the judgment, Wamakko said the decision of the apex court is a victory for democracy and the good people of the state. The court, however, granted the application of Dingyadi seeking to withdraw his interlocutory appeal. Justice Chukwuma-Eneh dismissed submissions by counsel to Wamako, PDP and INEC that the interlocutory appeal had been earlier re-instated so could not be withdrawn again.
Justice Chukwuma-Eneh said the earlier application to withdraw the notice was refused due to procedural defects which are curable and could be brought again as done by counsel to Dingyadi, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN). For now, the substantive appeal is still pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, where the dismissed interlocutory appeal originated from.
By Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, the apex court said it has powers to adjudicate over the real matter in dispute between the parties before it. Justifying its decision, the court said it dismissed the appeal at the Court of Appeal, Sokoto instead of that before the Court of Abuja, to avoid judicial anarchy. It explained that “where an abuse of court process relates to multiplicity of Actions/Appeal, being prosecuted in the same court or even I different courts simultaneously, the latter in time abate”.
Counsel to Wamakko, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) said that “In my carrier as a lawyer I have never seen a matter that has been subjected to public discourse. I have never seen a victim that is portrayed as a villain. What the Supreme Court has done today is to arrest a drift into judicial anarchy. There is this popular saying that you can kill two birds with a stone but you cannot kill one bird with two stones, it is not allowed in law.
The appellate court, however, in its decision held that an appeal is a continuation of hearing and not an invention of a new cause of action.
Supreme Court while ruling on all the pending applications in the appeal extended to it on June 4, issued an order stopping the Court of Appeal, Sokoto, from delivering judgment in the Sokoto Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal. The apex court also on June 4, restored the notice of appeal filed by Dingyadi’s counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), following protest by Wamako, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and PDP. They felt they were not heard before the decision to dismiss the application was taken.
But Dingaydi returned to the Supreme Court to apply for the discontinuation of the interlocutory application. At the last sitting, INEC’s counsel, Mr. Yahya Mahmud urged the court to dismiss the Notice of the Interlocutory Appeal because the court had decided on a similar application in the suit before. He described the application by Dingyadi as an attempt to resurrect the issue adding that “there must be an end to litigation”.
Aligning with the submission, Wamako’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) said the application vexatious and abusive, and must be arrested to forestall a drift in the judiciary. He urged the court to make consequential order dismissing the election petition appeal at the Court of Appeal, Sokoto. Otherwise, he added, there will be anarchy in the judicial system.
Toeing his line, PDP’s counsel, Mr. Alex Iziyon (SAN) urged the court to use its coercive power to dismiss the Sokoto appeal. Fagbemi in his own submission insisted that his client could withdraw the application at any time. He contended that the submissions of the respondents were misconceived. According to him, the earlier application made by his client in his Notice of Appeal was brought pursuant to Order 8 rule 6 (2) while this new one is brought under Order 8 Rule 6 (1).
Citing Justice Ogundare in the case of Ndugwe & Ndude, and Justice Karibi Whyte in the case of Edozie &Edozie, Fagbemi argued that he could withdraw his case unilaterally. Refusing an appellant to do so, he maintained, will be against the interest of public policy. “The reasons advanced by the lordships in dismissing the application the last time were that the other side was not heard and there were pending applications. In this matter, there is no pending application and none has been referred to by the respondents; therefore there is no clog in our wheel”, Fagbemi added.
Meanwhile the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Chairman, Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, has congratulated Sokoto State Governor Aliyu Magatakarda Wammako over his victory at the Supreme Court in the case instituted against him by defeated candidates in the last governorship elections.