Crusaderhotnews
1) The trial court (High Court) gave judgement in favour of Obaseki's group.
2) Dan Orbih's group filed an appeal against the judgement, out of time.
3) Obaseki's lawyers raised an objection that the appeal was filed out of time and asked the court to dismiss it.
4) Also, the records of the lower court which Dan Orbih's group transmitted to the court of appeal were incomplete because they ( Dan Orbih's lawyers) deliberately but dumbly removed parts of the records where PDP told the High court that members of Dan Orbih's group were not known to the party.
5) Obaseki's lawyers observed this fraud and quickly raised a preliminary objection to the facts that some records were missing; and asked that since the court cannot give judgement based on incomplete records, the case should be STRUCK OUT.
6) The court of appeal agreed with Obaseki's lawyers that the appeal was indeed filed out of time, but for the purpose of fair hearing allowed and heard the case.
7) After evaluating all the issues raised for determination, the lead Justice said that the court lacks the jurisdiction to give judgement on the matter because the records before the court were incomplete and therefore *STRUCK OUT THE SUIT* . This position was supported by the other two Justices who also *STRUCK OUT THE APPEAL* . However, one of the Justices (not the lead Justice) went ahead and set aside the judgement of the High court. But anyone with even a diploma in law knows that this is immaterial and counts for nothing.
THE CONFUSION
a) Parts of the judgement of the Justices (not the lead judgement) stated that the case is meritorious and therefore allowed.
b) The suit number which appeared on the copy of the judgement being circulated is that of the High Court and not the court of appeal number.
CLARIFICATION
a) If the court says your case is meritorious and allowed, it simply means that the case is good enough to be heard by the court, which is what the appeal court has done in this case, heard it. It does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the judgement is in your favour or must be in your favour.
The court of appeal has heard the case on its merit, but *struck it out* because the court did not have the complete records to give a fair judgement, particularly because the records were transmitted by the appellants and not the court. The case was dead on arrival due to incomplete records.
b) Any lawyer who did not attend evening school knows that in a case, the appellants are mentioned before the respondents. What was struck out was the suit Ogbeide Ihama and others Vs Matthew Iduoriyekemwen and others. This makes it the appeal court suit. If it were the High court case that was struck out, it would have been Matthew Iduoriyekemwen and others Vs Ogbeide Ihama and others. It is also common sensical that the court of appeal can not even strike out a case of the High court which is not before it.
It can only rule against the judgement of the High court. If the court of appeal is to strike out a case (as was requested by the lawyers of Obaseki's group in this case) it must be the case before it.
The mix up of the suit numbers is an error that is common in court. All that the parties need to do is to bring it to the attention of the court and it is corrected; as will be done here in the coming days.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE SUPREME COURT?
If the court of appeal has no record to give a judgement, the supreme court also will not have any records to give a judgement because it is the records that were transmitted to the court of appeal that will be transmitted to the supreme court, and no Judge or Justice can give a judgement based on incomplete records.
The Supreme Court will definitely dismiss the case also. Case closed.
WHAT LAWYERS OF OBASEKI'S GROUP CAN DO.
Lawyers of Obaseki's group can file a cross appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgement of the Court of Appeal and one of the most important grounds should be that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have heard the case, attempted to interrogate the facts or even evaluate the merit since the same court agreed that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and give judgement on the matter. The case was dead on arrival and still is.
Signed:
The Prophetic Lawyer.
1 Comments