Re:Statement regarding Discrepancy in the Court of Appeal's Judgment in the Kano Gubernatorial Appeal" dated 24 November 2023" by Olumide Atakpa Esquir

BY HIGH

CHIEF OBOL OKOI OBONO OBLA 

I have read the statement titled " Statement regarding Discrepancy in the Court of Appeal's Judgment in the Kano Gubernatorial Appeal" dated 24 November 2023, issued by Olumide Osaigbova Akpata dated 24 November 2023. 


With due respect to Mr Olumide Akpata, I beg to disagree with concerning certain aspects of his statement. 


He is disguising his partisanship under the platform of the former president of the NBA.


He is a member of the  Labor Party and indeed governorship aspirant in  Edo State. 


We all can see that the Court of Appeal made an error after going through the gamut of the judgment. 


The summary of the facts or background of the case. 


The issues for determination which both parties invited the Court of Appeal to resolve. 


The evaluation of the case of both parties, including Briefs of Argument, filed by the parties.


The reasoning of the judge who wrote the lead judgment, etc. 


You will not be hesitant to discern that the enrolled judgment order that is inconsistent with the judgment is an error. 


But we know politics in this clime is controversial, and partisanship can lead people to make mountains. out of a mole.


The Supreme Court of Nigeria has acknowledged several times in a plethora of cases the infallibility of the judicial process. 


Judges are also human beings with blood flowing in their veins, just like other human beings. 


They can also commit Freudian slips and are prone to make mistakes under the pressure of work, especially in election litigation, where there are deadlines for the cases to be heard and judgment delivered. 


This is why the drafters of the Rules of various courts make provisions for the correction of clerical slips or errors or mistakes. 


The errors that can be corrected include such errors that they must be so obvious that their correction can not generate any controversy regarding the judgment or decision of the court. 


By the same token, such errors must be of such nature that their correction would not change the substance of the judgment or alter the clear intention of the court.

Such errors must be so obvious that their correction can not generate any controversy regarding the judgment or decision of the court. 


By the same token, such errors must be of such nature that their correction would not change the substance of the judgment or alter the clear intention of the court.


In the case of Elias vs. Ecobank Nigeria Ltd (2016) NGCA 2016, the court was invited to  consider an application in a matter that dealt with a judgment that omitted counsel’s name


The court was asked to review and/or vary and/or annull part of the judgment to reflect the change. 


The court had the inherent power to correct a slip in its judgment. 

However, the slip rule can never be used by a party to seek clarity over a judgment but only correct minor errors.


Where counsel does appear and argue for the appellant, their names should not appear on the judgment. Further, only the names of counsel and not the parties are listed on the judgment. 


Once a court has delivered its decision on a matter, it ceases to be seized of the cases (functus officio), and it cannot re-open it for any purpose whatsoever except in appropriate and exceptional cases such as when judgment:


(a) was obtained by fraud or deceit;

(b) was a nullity;

(c) was given under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it;

(d) was given in the absence of jurisdiction;

(e) the proceedings adopted were such as to deprive the decision or judgment of the character of a legitimate adjudication; or

(f) was rendered with fundamental irregularity.

A court can, however, review a judgment to give effect to its meaning and correct clerical errors or accidental slips or omissions. 


In the case of Elias vs Ecobank Nigeria Ltd (supra), the court rejected the application to review or vary the judgment because it did not meet the criteria above but permitted the application to delete phrases that it was made in the absence of counsel and deleted reference to parties from appearance.

Pst Bill Francis Bill Spokesperson to Governor Prince Otu and Ceo Billionaire Bill media Team and Blog.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post