Again, Diri, PDP floor APC, Lyon at S’Court

.Applications for review of Bayelsa guber judgment vexatious, frivolous, says S’Court

.Slams N60m fine against Afe Babalola, Olanipekun

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the request by the All Progressive Congress (APC) to review its judgment voiding the participation of its governorship candidate David Lyon in the Bayelsa election is vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of the court.

The apex court therefore dismissed the two applications filed by All Progressives Congress (APC), its sacked governor-elect and deputy governor-elect, Mr. David Lyon and Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo for lacking in merit.

In a unanimous ruling delivered by Justice Amina Augie, the apex court came down heavily on the counsel to the applicants, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) and Wole Olanipekun (SAN) for filing the motions which the court described as regrettable and “a deliberate desecration of the judiciary”.

“With tears in eyes I regret that very senior lawyers are responsible for filing these applications”, Justice Augie said in an emotion laden voice.

She subsequently ordered the lawyers, Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), to pay the sum of N10 million to each of the three respondents as fine.

The beneficiary respondents are the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Governor Douye Diri and his deputy, Senator Lawrence Ewhujapkor.

In the ruling that lasted about 30 minutes, Justice Augie stated that by Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court, the court has no powers or authority to review any judgment delivered on merit safe for clerical error.

“This court is not authorised and indeed lacked jurisdiction to review any judgment delivered on merit, moreso when the applicants have not pointed out any accidental error or slip in the judgment. There must be an end to every litigation.

“This is final court and its decisions are final for all ages so as to ensure certainty in law.

“The two applications brought before us today lacked merit and constituted abuse of this court and they are liable to dismissal and are hereby dismissed”, the court held.

Justice Augie said the fine is to be personally paid by the lawyers.

AAAN business outlook: Experts project positive economic growth for Nigeria

Earlier during the hearing of the applications, Afe Babalola (SAN), had told the court that he   received some processes on the matter last (Tuesday) night. He observed that despite the volume of the processes on the matter and the issues have been identified, it is whether or not this court can set aside its own judgment?

He said the answer is yes. “This court has inherent powers to set aside its own judgement”, he said.

He listed various conditions under which the court can set aside it’s own judgement, adding that the judgment of Supreme Court delivered on February 13, 2020 on Bayelsa State governorship election held on November 16,2019 amount to a nullity haven being delivered  without giving the applicant fair hearing.

He also told the court that the suit that led to the appeal has “no cause of action.”

He said: “We lost at the trial court and won at the court of appeal that there was no cause of action.  This court never considered this point. There is no where in the judgment were the issue of cause of action was considered.

Wole Olanipekun, counsel to the 3rd respondent (APC), said his application is supported by affidavit, and 9 exhibits.

He said the bottom line of the respondent’s submission is that the court has no jurisdiction. He said the applicant has demonstrated that this court has jurisdiction.

He referred the court to Justice Oputa dicta on human error and maintained that it could not have made the consequential order when the relief sought was not granted by the federal high court. It was a mistake, he said.

He stated that if the Supreme Court had restored the judgment of the federal high court, they would not have complained.

Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), counsel to Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), told the court that the two applications are meant to violate the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria.

He said that the cause of action which the applicants said that the court did not consider in its judgment were explicitly treated on pages 19 and 20 of the judgment.

The counsel therefore gave three reasons why the Supreme Court would not revisit its judgment once this Court heard the matter and gave judgment, saying its decision is final. It would be scandalous if this judgment is reversed, he said, adding that nothing prevents or limited this court to issue an order withdrawing the certificate of return.

He said so far as the apex court has made a pronouncement on the issue, it is final.

“Let them point any part of the judgment were the lordship omitted part judgment in the order its issued,” adding that the apex court has general power under section 22 of the constitution of federal republic to do what it did.

Oyetibo said that the third reasons is that a revisit of the judgment will engender judicial instability.

According to him, “more than one thousand applications will flood the court, if the court refused to dismiss the applications.

Ustaz Usman (SAN), representative of Governor Douye, filed counter affidavit. He adopted the processes and submitted that the court can not go outside law and sit on appeal on its own judgement. He also submitted that the Supreme Court treated cause of action on pages 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the judgment and it resolved the issues.

“The Supreme Court did not go outside what the trial court held. He urged the court to dismiss the applications.

Chief Chris Uche (SAN), counsel to the deputy governor, Senator Ewhujapkor, vehemently opposed the two applications in his preliminary objection. He urged the court to dismiss the applications as an abuse of the court process and the court itself.

He also prayed the court to strike out Olanipekun motion for want of jurisdiction.

On whether the Supreme Court had the constitutional, statutory and inherent jurisdiction to revisit its judgment, he said it can revisit only to correct clerical mistakes.

He maintained that relief contained in applications was an abuse of court process. He urged the court to decline the dangerous invitation to hear the applications.

Inuwa, SAN, counsel for INEC, did not file any process.

Other members  of the panel were the presiding justice Sylvester Ngwuta, Justice Mary Peter-Odili, Justice  Kayode Ariwoola, Justice Kudirat kekere-Ekun, Inyang Okoro and Justice  Ejembi Eko.