BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Rasaki v.Ajijola
  • 906
  • 2017-10-09
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Rasaki v.Ajijola

1600                   All Federation Weekly Law Reports                         9 October 2017

                     1. HON. FATIMA RASAKI
                     2. PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
                                            V
                      1. OLADIMEJI LATEEF AJIJOLA
                      2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
                          COMMISSION (INEC)        
           

                        SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC (Presided)
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JSC
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JSC
AMIRU SANUSI JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE JSC
                                                                                                                          SC. 826/2016
                                                                                                           FRIDAY, 7 APRIL 2017
APPEAL - Appeal filed outside time statutorily prescribed or
                 extended for - Incompetence of - Order 18, rules 10(1),
                 Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 considered
APPEAL - Interlocutory appeals that may foreclose chances of
                  respondent being heard in lower court - Attitude of
                 Supreme Court to
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Order meeting justice of case
                    before it - Discretion of court to make - Exercise of -                                                               Proper approach to
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES - Order meeting justice of
                    case before it - Discretion of court to make - Exercise of
                     - Proper approach to
STATUTE - Court of Appeal Rules, 2011, Order 18, rules 10(1)
                      - Appeal filed outside time statutorily prescribed or
                       extended for - Incompetence of


Issues:
1. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal
were right in refusing to dismiss the appeal filed by
the first respondent as appellant in appeal No. CA/
EK/56/2014 for want of diligent prosecution.
2. Whether the court below ought not to have relied on
and be bound by its ruling in appeal No. CA/EK/51/
2015 and thereby ought to have dismissed the appeal
filed by the 1st respondent herein, as appellant in
appeal No. CA/EK/56/3015.

Facts:
          The 1st respondent filed an action in the Federal High
Court, Abuja division relating to nomination of 1st appellant.
The suit was transferred to the Ekiti division of the court where
the suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction. The 1st respondent
subsequently filed another action in the Federal High Court,
Ekiti division. The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection
challenging competence of the suit on grounds that the earlier
suit constituted res judicata and the subsequent suit was caught
by provisions of Public Officers Protection Law. The trial court
dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the earlier suit
was not tried on the merit. The 2nd respondent was aggrieved
and appealed to the Court of Appeal while the 1st respondent,
cross-appealed. Both appeals were consolidated by order of                                          court. The lower court raised suo motu issue of lack of
jurisdiction to determine the appeal on grounds of inadequacy
of filing fees paid. It thereafter struck out 1st appellant’s appeal.
            The appellants filed preliminary objection to the cross-appeal
on grounds that it was filed out of time without leave for. The
lower court dismissed the objection and the appellants being
dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the
lower court erred in dismissing their appeal.
            In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered
the following statutes:
                Court of Appeal Rules, 2011, Order 18, rule 10(1) -