- October 25, 2016
- Posted by: Stephen Azubuike
- Category: Case Law Blog
No Comments
C.P.C. v. Yuguda [2013] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1354) 450 at 460, paras. F-G, per Peter-Odili, JSC:
“…It is not for the Court of Appeal to deliver a judgment so called and adjourn for reasons, since it is not the final destination in an appeal over the Governorship disputed election nor can such a reason be made available beyond the 60 days within which the Court of Appeal can hear and dispose of the appeals from the trial tribunal.”
Notes:
The facts of the above case are interesting. Judgment was delivered by the Tribunal. The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the Judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal did not only fail to deliver its Judgment within the required 60 days, it also failed to give reasons for its Judgment, reserving same for a later date. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court urging the apex Court to invoke section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to rehear the appeal and enter Judgment in its favour. The Respondents filed a preliminary objection against the appeal on the ground that there was no valid Judgment that could lead to a valid appeal. The Supreme Court sustained the objection and struck out the appeal.
The above case presents us with a classic example where the conduct of the Court of Appeal in relation to the case brought serious hardship upon the Appellants.
