The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a motion filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission seeking clarification of its January 29, 2016 judgment which many claimed had sacked federal legislators from Anambra State, including Senators Andy Uba and Stella Oduah.
A five-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, held that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion.
Justice Nyang Okoro, who read the lead ruling of the court, held that there was no ambiguity in the apex court’s judgment and could not be accommodated under Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court rules.
But despite declining jurisdiction to clarify the judgment, Justice Okoro, went on to highlight what the apex court decided and did not decide in the said verdict.
Justice Okoro who had delivered the judgment which was being sought to be interpreted, ruled for instance, that the apex court did not resolve the question relating to the legitimacy or otherwise of the list of candidates submitted to INEC for the 2015 National Assembly election by the various factions of the Peoples Democratic Party in Anambra State.
He ruled, “The competence of a court to exercise jurisdiction in relation to an action before it depends on certain conditions. One of such conditions is that the subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction of the court and that there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction.
“Order 8 Rule 16 of this court, under which this application is brought states:’ the court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it, safe to correct any clerical mistake or some errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. A judgment and order should not be varied when it correctly represents what the court decided nor shall the operative and substantive part of it be varied and in different form, substituted.’
“I must say this court, in an application of this nature, is guided by the above Rule. In view of the above guidance of this Rule, can this court assume jurisdiction to hear the motion seeking clarification of our judgment? I do not think so. Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
Shame all the solicitors in Nigeria can't interpret a simple pronouncement.In law, only true owner/legally recognized or constituted person/s/authority can pass on title.If someone stole something then sold the thing on to another person,the person that bought the thing,has not right of title to the stolen thing bought.The legally recognized PDP faction that the court reinstated and the contestants presented are the legally recognized representatives.The two illegal Senators,Odush and Ubah should shamefully hide their faces and allow rightful people take their seats.Judiciary is so corrupt in that country they can't even tell their left hand from the right
ReplyDeleteMumu,olo so. Thank God that the supreme court has now come out to save our judiciary otherwise this clueless and bad losers called apc would have bastardize it because they want to win at all cost.Thank God for The apex court this people would have collapsed the Judiciary just like they did to the economy, INEC and other agencies that are supposed to be independent are now allegedly extension of apc- a party that rule of law is storage to. It is sad.Apc has nothing to offer and is a disgrace in all ramifications. God bless Nigeria.
Delete