Anambra central: Special panel of Justices begin sitting on Okonkwo’s appeal

A five-member panel of Justices, specially constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa on Tuesday commenced sitting on the appeal filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Dr. Obiora Okonkwo seeking to restore the consent judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on December 13, 2017.

The Judgement of the trial court ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue Okonkwo a certificate of return as the senator representing Anambra Central Senatorial District of Anambra state.

However, after sorting out some preliminary issues relating to the appeal, the panel headed by Justice M.L. Garba fixed February 26, 2018, for definite hearing of the appeal.

Members of the special panel who are drawn from the various divisions of the court to hear the pre-election matter also include Justices M.A. Danjuma; T.O. Awotoye; M.L. Shuaibu and F.O. Oho.

When the appeal came up for mention yesterday, the legal team to the appellant, comprising three Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN); Sabastine Hon; Festus Keyamo and Kehinde Ogunwumiju, informed the court about the processes already filed before it.

Hon, who led the appellant team of lawyers specifically told the court that he has filed the appellant’s brief of the argument but needed time to respond to the processes filed by INEC’s counsel, Chief Awomolo Adegboyega (SAN), including a notice of preliminary objections to the appeal.

He consequently asked the court for a short adjournment for the purpose of filling his response.

Hon’s application was not opposed to by counsel to the respondents including the PDP, Ifeanyi Umeji and Ernest Nwoye for Mrs Ekwunife.

The court consequently granted the application and adjourned the matter to February 26, 2018.

Okonkwo, in the notice of appeal, hinged on 13 grounds, prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside January 12, 2018, ruling of Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court which vacated the said consent judgment delivered on December 13, last year.

He also asked the appellate court for an order directing INEC to immediately comply with the consent judgment of Justice Tsoho delivered on the same date, by issuing him with a Certificate of Return as the winner of the disputed senatorial seat.

In addition, the appellant is seeking an order of the Court of Appeal to the effect that the consent judgment entered into by Justice Tsoho on December 13, 2017, in suit No; FHC/ABJ/CS/1092/2014, ranks superior to any post-election decision, notwithstanding the hierarchy of court established by section 287 and other relevant provisions of the 1999 constitution (as amended).

He further prayed for an order that in spite of the hierarchy of the courts established by section 287 and other relevant provisions of the 1999 constitution, a pre-election suit and decisions ranks/superior to a post-election decision.

The appellant also asked for an order setting aside the order of Justice Tsoho that proceedings in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1092/2014 be adjourned sine die pending the determination of the two appeals filed by the PDP before the Supreme Court.

Specifically, the appellant said ‎his right to a fair hearing was denied by Justice Tsoho when he single-handedly amended the only relief in a Motion on Notice brought by INEC seeking to “vary” his judgment of December 13, 2017.

Okonkwo maintained that “the learned trial judge suo motu, held that the word “vary” means “vacate”, without giving the parties, especially the appellant an opportunity to address him on that”.

He also raised questions about Justice Tsoho’s decision to hold that INEC’s sole relief was not vague on the ground that other contents of the Motion on Notice saved it and further argued that, by adding the word ‘vacate’ to the Motion on Notice by INEC, Justice Tsoho went out of his way to decide on what was not asked for by INEC.

While stating that his suit emanated from a pre-election situation, Okonkwo also reminded the court that all matters relating to the Court of Appeal which Justice Tsoho relied upon in delivering his ruling, were all from post-election litigations.

The appellant also informed the Court of Appeal that Justice Tsoho was wrong to have held that a consent judgment is not a judgment on the merits and could be set aside through a motion on notice adding that a consent judgment is recognized under section 241(2)(c) of the of the constitution as a final judgment against which an appeal could only be lodged with leave.

He said, “It is a settled law that the only means by which a consent judgment could be set aside by a trial court is by way of a fresh action and not by a mere motion on notice”.