Osun guber: Appeal Court fixes April 24 for hearing

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has scheduled hearing for April 24 in the appeals filed by the Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the March 22, 2019 by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal.
Information about the hearing date is contained in notices sent to parties by the court’s Registry, a copy of which newsmen sighted on Monday in Abuja.
The tribunal, in a split decision of two-to-one, voided the victory of Oyetola and the APC in the election held on September 22, 2018, but concluded with a rerun on September 27, 2018.
Two members of the tribunal’s three-member panel upheld the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Senator Ademola Adeleke against the outcome of election, while its chairman dismissed it for being unmeritorious.
Justices Peter Obiorah and Adegboye Gbolagunte gave the majority decision, which replaced Oyetola and APC with Adeleke and PDP as winners of the election.
The tribunal Chairman, Justice Muhammad Sirajo, in his dissenting judgment/minority decision, held otherwise.
He dismissed the petition by Adeleke and PDP on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their claims.
In the separate notices of appeal they filed against the tribunal’s majority judgment, Oyetola and the APC ripped the judgment apart, arguing that “it is perverse, replete with contradictions and against the weight of evidence.”
The want the Court of Appeal to uphold their appeals, set aside the majority judgment and dismiss the October 16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP.
Oyetola and the APC said they were contesting the entire majority judgment, except where it held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the INEC Guidelines used for the election; that the allegation of over voting was not proved; that the petitioners did not prove voided votes, and other parts of the judgment where it agreed with their arguments.
They queried the validity of the judgment, which was authored and delivered by Justice Obiorah, who they noted, did not participate in all the sittings of the tribunal during trial.
The appellants are of the view that the entire of the majority judgment is a nullity, because it was written and delivered by Justice Obiorah “who did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal and who was not present when all the witnesses gave evidence.”
They noted that Justice Obiorah was absent on February 6, 2019 when the respondents witnesses (RWs) 12 and 13 – Ayoola Soji and Oladejo Kazeem – testified and tendered exhibits, which the tribunal admitted in evidence.
The appellants are contending that, having not attended the tribunal’s siting on February 6, 2019, Justice Obiorah did not see the two witnesses and was unable to examine their demeanour, as required, and therefore, it was unlawful for the judge to have authored a judgment in which he reviewed the evidence given by the witnesses.
In the notice of appeal filed for Oyetola by his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), it was argued that: “The writing of and or the participation of the Honourable Justice P. C. Obiorah in the writing of the judgment of the lower tribunal of 22nd March 2019 and delivery of same, vitiates the entire judgment.”
Oyetola and the APC faulted the decision of the tribunal, in the majority judgment, to declare the rerun election unlawful and proceeded to set it aside.
They also faulted the tribunal’s finding that the respondents did not deny the claim by the petitions, through PW74, that the Returning Officer cancelled election in the seven polling units and ordered a rerun.
The appellants said: “The first and third respondents (INEC and APC), in their pleadings, did not admit that it was the Returning Officer that cancelled the result of the election in the seven polling units, but rather, that it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the seven units as distinct from the units’ results.
“Indeed, as pleaded at paragraphs 24, 25, 27 and 29 of the petition, it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the seven units for the reasons alleged by the petitioners.
“The tribunal ought to have held the petitioners bound by their pleadings that it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the units and the fact that the 3rd respondent also pleaded that it was the 1sy respondent that cancelled the election in the units.”
They argued that even if it was any of the electoral officials that announced the cancellation and rerun election, in law, they acted as INEC’s agents of the first respondent (INEC).
The appellants noted that the petitioners did not only fail to tender results from the seven polling units to support their claim that election actually held in the polling units and the results were cancelled; they also failed to exhibit the votes scored by the parties that participated in the election, if actually their was an election.
Oyetayo and APC argued that, rather than holding against the petitioners, for not supplying the necessary evidence, the tribunal wrongly relied on the evidence of PW74, which it had earlier expunged from the record for being hearsay.
They argued that, in the absence of vital evidence, “the tribunal ought to have held that the petitioners did not make out the case that there was any election in the seven polling units and that the Returning Officer cancelled the results of the election in the seven units.”
They argued that even if it was any of the electoral officials that announced the cancellation and rerun election, in law, they acted as INEC’s agents of the first respondent (INEC).

This is the stage 2 of the litigation. Judgement must be given before May 20 in line with the Nigerian constitution. If it later reaches stage 3 at the Supreme court judgement must be given before July 20 .

ejimatic:
Osun guber: Appeal Court fixes April 24 for hearing

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has scheduled hearing for April 24 in the appeals filed by the Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the March 22, 2019 by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal.
Information about the hearing date is contained in notices sent to parties by the court’s Registry, a copy of which newsmen sighted on Monday in Abuja.
The tribunal, in a split decision of two-to-one, voided the victory of Oyetola and the APC in the election held on September 22, 2018, but concluded with a rerun on September 27, 2018.
Two members of the tribunal’s three-member panel upheld the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Senator Ademola Adeleke against the outcome of election, while its chairman dismissed it for being unmeritorious.
Justices Peter Obiorah and Adegboye Gbolagunte gave the majority decision, which replaced Oyetola and APC with Adeleke and PDP as winners of the election.
The tribunal Chairman, Justice Muhammad Sirajo, in his dissenting judgment/minority decision, held otherwise.
He dismissed the petition by Adeleke and PDP on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their claims.
In the separate notices of appeal they filed against the tribunal’s majority judgment, Oyetola and the APC ripped the judgment apart, arguing that “it is perverse, replete with contradictions and against the weight of evidence.”
The want the Court of Appeal to uphold their appeals, set aside the majority judgment and dismiss the October 16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP.
Oyetola and the APC said they were contesting the entire majority judgment, except where it held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the INEC Guidelines used for the election; that the allegation of over voting was not proved; that the petitioners did not prove voided votes, and other parts of the judgment where it agreed with their arguments.
They queried the validity of the judgment, which was authored and delivered by Justice Obiorah, who they noted, did not participate in all the sittings of the tribunal during trial.
The appellants are of the view that the entire of the majority judgment is a nullity, because it was written and delivered by Justice Obiorah “who did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal and who was not present when all the witnesses gave evidence.”
They noted that Justice Obiorah was absent on February 6, 2019 when the respondents witnesses (RWs) 12 and 13 – Ayoola Soji and Oladejo Kazeem – testified and tendered exhibits, which the tribunal admitted in evidence.
The appellants are contending that, having not attended the tribunal’s siting on February 6, 2019, Justice Obiorah did not see the two witnesses and was unable to examine their demeanour, as required, and therefore, it was unlawful for the judge to have authored a judgment in which he reviewed the evidence given by the witnesses.
In the notice of appeal filed for Oyetola by his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), it was argued that: “The writing of and or the participation of the Honourable Justice P. C. Obiorah in the writing of the judgment of the lower tribunal of 22nd March 2019 and delivery of same, vitiates the entire judgment.”
Oyetola and the APC faulted the decision of the tribunal, in the majority judgment, to declare the rerun election unlawful and proceeded to set it aside.
They also faulted the tribunal’s finding that the respondents did not deny the claim by the petitions, through PW74, that the Returning Officer cancelled election in the seven polling units and ordered a rerun.
The appellants said: “The first and third respondents (INEC and APC), in their pleadings, did not admit that it was the Returning Officer that cancelled the result of the election in the seven polling units, but rather, that it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the seven units as distinct from the units’ results.
“Indeed, as pleaded at paragraphs 24, 25, 27 and 29 of the petition, it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the seven units for the reasons alleged by the petitioners.
“The tribunal ought to have held the petitioners bound by their pleadings that it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the units and the fact that the 3rd respondent also pleaded that it was the 1sy respondent that cancelled the election in the units.”
They argued that even if it was any of the electoral officials that announced the cancellation and rerun election, in law, they acted as INEC’s agents of the first respondent (INEC).
The appellants noted that the petitioners did not only fail to tender results from the seven polling units to support their claim that election actually held in the polling units and the results were cancelled; they also failed to exhibit the votes scored by the parties that participated in the election, if actually their was an election.
Oyetayo and APC argued that, rather than holding against the petitioners, for not supplying the necessary evidence, the tribunal wrongly relied on the evidence of PW74, which it had earlier expunged from the record for being hearsay.
They argued that, in the absence of vital evidence, “the tribunal ought to have held that the petitioners did not make out the case that there was any election in the seven polling units and that the Returning Officer cancelled the results of the election in the seven units.”
They argued that even if it was any of the electoral officials that announced the cancellation and rerun election, in law, they acted as INEC’s agents of the first respondent (INEC).

. v I share the same opinion with appellants on their conclusion on the cancellation of results by the agents of INEC. but let us await the appeal court decision on this ground.

Adelek is taking this 3-2. Who will bet?

ChristianNorth:
Adelek is taking this 3-2. Who will bet?

Is it 5 judges that will preside?

billante:


Is it 5 judges that will preside?

. I think they are three but supreme court is 5

ChristianNorth:
Adelek is taking this 3-2. Who will bet?

I will bet.i dont want you to argue about buhari or atiku again once adeleke loses.you must accept apc and embrace buhari or quit this forum.a 3- 2 victory at the appeal will even give oyetola more advantage at the supreme

billante:

Is it 5 judges that will preside?

That guy na confirm Otondo

Electoral reform is the only way to stop all this useless act of fraud called inconclusive

garfield1:

I will bet.i dont want you to argue about buhari or atiku again once adeleke loses.you must accept apc and embrace buhari or quit this forum.a 3- 2 victory at the appeal will even give oyetola more advantage at the supreme

Adeleke is not losing. We are going home with 3-2 victory.

Watch!!!

billante:

Is it 5 judges that will preside?

3 at the Tribunal 5 at the Appeal Court 7 at the Supreme Court

ChristianNorth:
3 at the Tribunal 5 at the Appeal Court 7 at the Supreme Court

Appeal is 3. Supreme is 5

ejimatic:
Appeal is 3. Supreme is 5

Tribunal 3 Appeal 5 Supreme 7

ChristianNorth:
Tribunal 3 Appeal 5 Supreme 7

. Appeal 3. Supreme 3 or 5 and in exceptional cases 7

ejimatic:
. Appeal 3. Supreme 3 or 5 and in exceptional cases 7

Go and collect refund from your school.

https://dailypost.ng/2019/04/23/adeleke-vs-oyetola-appeal-court-speaks-inclusion-justice-oyewole-osun-panel/ Election Appeal court has 3 members.

[quote author=ChristianNorth post=77810462]
Go and collect refund from your https://dailypost.ng/2019/04/23/adeleke-vs-oyetola-appeal-court-speaks-inclusion-justice-oyewole-osun-panel/]. election appeal court has 3 members.... let professional enlighten you.....nobody knows everthing

[quote author=ejimatic post=77811457][/quote]
Which professional? You?

The standard procedure for Governorship appeals at the Court of Appeal is 5 justices, if the court is constituting a panal of 3 justices, then we have reason to be afraid.

Already they are trying to include the Ex-Chief Judge of Lagos High Court in the panel.

ChristianNorth:

Which professional? You?

The standard procedure for Governorship appeals at the Court of Appeal is 5 justices, if the court is constituting a panal of 3 justices, then we have reason to be afraid.

Already they are trying to include the Ex-Chief Judge of Lagos High Court in the panel.

. The appeal court president decides the number.Usually for Governorship election appeals 3 is selected.....The odd number gives room for majority and minority decision. At the supreme court the nature of the case determines the no of judges involved which will be selected by the CJ of Nigeria
There is nothing to be afraid of since any decision made at the appeal court can still be challenged at the supreme court on election matters withing 60 days.

ChristianNorth:

Which professional? You?

The standard procedure for Governorship appeals at the Court of Appeal is 5 justices, if the court is constituting a panal of 3 justices, then we have reason to be afraid.

Already they are trying to include the Ex-Chief Judge of Lagos High Court in the panel.

. I just saw your 2 rhetorical questions. There is nothing to argue for online.If you are a SAN good luck ..It makes no meaning....However when we talk we know what we are saying

ChristianNorth:

Which professional? You?

The standard procedure for Governorship appeals at the Court of Appeal is 5 justices, if the court is constituting a panal of 3 justices, then we have reason to be afraid.

Already they are trying to include the Ex-Chief Judge of Lagos High Court in the panel.

Me and you argued this before now you are recanting and agreeing with.gradually,you will fall before me.

Ade Dansa and his paid for tribunal black market justice will have their asses handed to them..

ejimatic:
. I just saw your 2 rhetorical questions. There is nothing to argue for online.If you are a SAN good luck ..It makes no meaning....However when we talk we know what we are saying

I didn't say I am a SAN and I didn't say I am not a SAN. But what I am trying to say is that the standard procedure is 5 justices on the bench while the Supreme is 7.

If the President of ACN is now constituting 3 for the Osun case, then we have reasons to be afraid.

garfield1:

Me and you argued this before now you are recanting and agreeing with.gradually,you will fall before me.

Go sit down.

Our argument was on the Supreme Court bench and like I said before, 5 Supreme Court Justices can sit in appeal.

BREAKING NEWS:
Appeal Court reserves Judgement on Osun Governorship Election
My take; didun ni Osan a so fun egbe PDP and Senator Ademola Adeleke.

OSUN GUBER APPEAL COURT SITTING:
Chief Olujimi wrongly presented to the honourable court that CTC of forms EC8As were dumped when in actual fact, Adeleke/PDP called 84 Witnesses who tendered their pink copies of EC8As as well as the corresponding CTCs.

Once a witness tenders an exhibit as well as testify to them, those exhibits CANNOT be deemed to have been dumped.

The law is clear and cannot be manufactured to suit OYETOLA.

dullard let me see you call Buhari dullard again. Nothing in your upstair.

ChristianNorth:

Go and collect refund from your school.

Chief Olujinmi submitted that "it was erroneous for the Tribunal to rely on certified true copies (CTC)of Forms EC8A"

My take;
1. If Tribunal did not rely on form EC8A which INEC the body that conducted the election presented to the tribunal what should tribunal rely upon? May be form ZZBA29 ��������� e ti daran

2. For APC lawyer to plead that appeal court should not rely on form EC8A which is clearly different from pink copies presented by PDP is a big contradiction to INEC watery appeal

3. Please the legal luminaries and reasonable politicians in the house, can appeal court generate election results from heaven when APC said they should not rely on EC8A �������

Court no be father Christmas ........ Abeg joor, imole nbo

ChristianNorth:

I didn't say I am a SAN and I didn't say I am not a SAN. But what I am trying to say is that the standard procedure is 5 justices on the bench while the Supreme is 7.

If the President of ACN is now constituting 3 for the Osun case, then we have reasons to be afraid.

What if she constitutes 5 with 3 being pro apc

9jahotblog:
Chief Olujinmi submitted that "it was erroneous for the Tribunal to rely on certified true copies (CTC)of Forms EC8A"

My take;
1. If Tribunal did not rely on form EC8A which INEC the body that conducted the election presented to the tribunal what should tribunal rely upon? May be form ZZBA29 ��������� e ti daran

2. For APC lawyer to plead that appeal court should not rely on form EC8A which is clearly different from pink copies presented by PDP is a big contradiction to INEC watery appeal

3. Please the legal luminaries and reasonable politicians in the house, can appeal court generate election results from heaven when APC said they should not rely on EC8A �������

Court no be father Christmas ........ Abeg joor, imole nbo

You are funny.is that the only prayer he made? Cant someone make mistake again? The issue here is that the court should have used the copies of the party agents to recalculate the real figures or simply call for a rerun in the 17 contentious umits and i see the appeal court agreeing

OSUN GOVERNORSHIPS APPEAL TRIBUNAL UPDATES

From the appeal court today in the case between governor oyetola and senator Adeleke
Chief Olujinmi submitted that it was erroneous for the Tribunal to rely on certified true copies of Forms EC8A having held that the documents were dumped on the Tribunal
Chief Olujinmi further submitted that the ground of the Petition stated by the Petitioner on non-compliance was restricted to 27 Sept 2018 election whereas the 17 units cancelled by the Tribunal relates to Sept. 22, 2018 election outside the purview of the ground of the Petition.
Chief Olujinmi submitted on behalf of APC that the judgment is a nullity because the Tribunal went out on its own to grant reliefs not sought by the Petitioners whereas it has no jurisdiction to do so!
Judgment in the appeal of Governor Oyetola is reserved and date will be communicated.
Chief Wole Olanipekun submitted that it is clear from the record that Justice Obiora did not sign the record on the day he was absent but signed on all other days.
Chief Wole Olanipekun representing Gov Oyetola has submitted that the majority judgment of the Tribunal should be nullified because Justice Obiora that did not sit throughout the proceedings wrote the judgment and reviewed evidence of witnesses he did not see.

Diuch Reporters

garfield1:
What if she constitutes 5 with 3 being pro apc

PDP have right to seek for a recuse. It is as simple as that.