Ize-Iyamu Vs Obaseki: Appeal Court To Deliver Judgement Next Week

 

By Idahosa Moses/ Adanegbe Iyobosa

The Court of Appeal sitting in Benin City, Edo State has reserved ruling for next week in the appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the September 28, 2016 governorship election in the state, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, challenging the judgement of Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal decision to upheld the election of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Godwin Obaseki.

The five-member panel headed by Justice M B. Dongba-Mensem haven listened to the addresses and adoptions of written briefs of all the parties said “judgment is reserved”.

The Appellants, Pastor Ize-Iyamu (1st Appellant) and PDP (2nd Appellant) have approached the appellate court with 41 grounds of appeal, praying the court to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal headed by Justice Ahmed Badamasi.

Also, on the cross appeal filed by 1st Appellant-Cross Respondent, APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, prayed the court to upheld the cross appeal and dismiss the objection of Pastor Ize-Iyamu and PDP who were joined in the cross appeal filed by APC.

The counsel to the Cross-respondents Appellants’ Mallam Yusuf Alli, SAN, while urging the court to dismiss the cross appeal, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, and Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Counsel to the 2nd and 3rd Appellants’ cross respondents prayed the appellate court to allow the appellant cross appeal.

Justice MB Dongba-Mensem led 5-man appeal panel however, reserved ruling to the day of the main appeal.

Meanwhile, the panel which other members as Justices S.Tom Yakubu, M.O. Bolaji Yusuf, U.A. Ogakwu and Mohammed Mustapha as members, in their unanimous decisions dismissed a Motion of Notice filed by the 1st appellant, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu pursuant to Order 6 Rule 1, Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 as well as Section 36(1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended for the correction/amendment of the trial tribunal record of his evidence-in-chief.

Ize-Iyamu also sought an Order deeming the record of his evidence by Justice E.A. Adesodun (member 1), made on January 30, 2017 as the correct record of his evidence in-chief at the tribunal

The appellant haven raised five grounds for the motion, which included that the tribunal’s record compiled and transmitted to the appellate Court contained an incorrect rendition of Ize-Iyamu’s evidence by Justice Badamasi, urged for a leave of court to correct the record of appeal and use the supplementary record of the appeal they transmitted to the court.

The appellants argument was faulted by counsels to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, (1st Respondent), Governor Godwin Obaseki (2nd Respondent) and All Progressives Congress, APC, (3rd respondent) in their separate submissions

Counsel to the 1st Respondent, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, citing the cases of Ngige vs. Obi, 2006, 14NWLR and Dantyg vs. Kanya, 2009, 4NWLR held that there was no way the record of proceedings by the chairman of the tribunal would be substituted with that of a member, noting that member’s jottings were side notes.

Ikpeazu averred that the appellants were mainly relying on the documentary hearsay as he posited that they were not the one that recorded the exhibits C which the appellant sought to rely on.

Chief Wole Olanipekun, Counsel to the 2nd Respondent in his argument described the appellants’ application as lacking in substance, academic exercise, incomprehensible and not doable, urging the court to dismiss them.

“I humbly urge your Lordships to uphold the objection of the 2nd respondent and strike out the appeal and on the merit of the appeal alone, dismissed the appeal, he submitted.

However counsel to the 3rd respondent, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, while aligning with submissions of counsels to INEC and Governor Obaseki, Citing Garuba Vs. Omokhodion, 2011, 14NWLR, urged the court to dismiss the application.

Ruling on the Motion on Notice, Justice Dongbam-Mensem held: “haven listened to all the arguments’ of canvassed by counsels to the appellants and respondents; I hold that no exceptional circumstance has been shown to warrant the amendment of the record of the tribunal as taken by the chairman. I hereby dismiss this application”.

 

 

About Author