*Olanipekun faults attempt to correct alleged typo error
*Allow appellate to appeal without inhibitions, SAN tells Court of Appeal
*Says Appeal Court lacks power to revisit a case after 60 days lapses
*Insists any correction application can only be entertained Supreme Court
*Counters court’s claim that parties had applied for rectification of errors
By BASHIR ADEFAKA
Olanipekun insisted that any correction application can only be entertained henceforth by the Supreme Court, while warning that withdrawing the judgment will inhibit Yusuf’s right to appeal within 14 days.
The case in Kano State Governorship Election Petitions matter may now have settled with the Certified True Copy of judgment issued to candidate of New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) and Governor of Kano State, Engr. Abba Kabir Yusuf, being that the documented judgment, from eyes of the law, cannot be withdrawn for correction by the same Court of Appeal that issued it.
This was as Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) turned down the Court of Appeal’s request to retrieve the recently issued Certified True Copy judgment on the governorship election petition for alleged errors.
The DEFENDER reports that Wole Olanipekun was lawyer of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the presidential election petitions case that ended at the Supreme Court of Nigeria without considering former President Atiku Abubakar’s United States court judgment provided as evidence of non-qualification to contest the February 25, 2023 election in Nigeria.
In Kano, the most volatile state in terms of politics where opposition NNPP is ruling party and Olanipekun is incidentally its lawyer in the case, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria issued a strongly worded response wherein on Thursday he faulted the Court of Appeal’s attempt to recall the judgment after providing it to his client and appellant, Abba Kabir Yusuf, on Tuesday November 21.
He argued that the court became functus officio following expiry of the constitutionally mandated 60-day deadline for election appeals on November 18.
Olanipekun insisted that any correction application can only be entertained henceforth by the Supreme Court, while warning that withdrawing the judgment will inhibit Yusuf’s right to appeal within 14 days.
The lawyer also countered the claim that parties had applied for rectification of errors on the CTC, stressing that none of such claims evidently exists from their end.
The erudite lawyer reiterated that Court of Appeal is bereft of powers to revisit a case after 60 days lapse.
Sources disclosed Olanipekun’s refusal may indicate substantive discrepancies between the physical copy issued and what was delivered in court. There are suspicions of likely tampering.
Yusuf has rejected the appellate judgment validating Nasiru Gawuna of APC as duly elected Kano governor and, from paragraphs revealed by the CTC of the Friday November 17 judgement, the court contradicted itself when it eventually released its judgment as it reversed the sack of the governor, set aside the Tribunal’s judgment declaring Gawuna as governor and went further to a N1 million fine in favour of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf against APC.
See e-copy of Olanipekun’s letter below:
WOLE OLANIPEKUN & CO LEGAL PRACTITIONERS WOC/LG/VOL.04/267/2023 23 November 2023
The Deputy Chief Registrar Court of Appeal Kano Judicial Division Kano Attention: Amina Ibrahim (Mrs.)
Dear Deputy Chief Registrar,
RE: RETRIEVAL OF CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO: CA/KN/EP/GOV/KAN/34/2023 – ABBA KABIR YUSUF AND ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ORS
Your letter dated November 22, 2023, was delivered at our Abuja office late on the same day (November 22, 2023), and was brought to the attention of the undersigned around 10:30 am today, November 23, 2023.
As officers in the Temple of Justice, we believe we owe the institution, as well as the respected Court of Appeal, a duty to highlight and address some very pertinent issues arising out of your said letter, including, but not limited to:
Timely Disposal of Appeal: The judgment of the lower Tribunal was delivered on 20th September 2023. By the imperative of section 285(7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Court of Appeal had only sixty (60) days to “hear and dispose” of the appeal arising from the judgment of the Tribunal. Most humbly, the Constitution applies the word “within” and not ‘from’ the date of “the delivery of the judgment of the Tribunal.”
Constitutional Mandate: Further to the above, the Court of Appeal, by the same constitutional dictate, had up until Saturday, November 18, 2023, to ‘hear and dispose’ of the appeal filed by our client (the appellant) to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Governorship Election Tribunal, sitting in Kano. Several judicial precedents of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal itself abound in our Law Reports on this subject, which has now become trite.
Function of the Court: Assuming without conceding that the judgment has some errors, whether typographical or otherwise, we humbly and dutifully draw your attention to the fact that the Court of Appeal became functus officio in the matter on Saturday, November 18, 2023. Any application for correction of errors can only be entertained by the Supreme Court. Section 285(7) of the Constitution earlier referred to becomes very handy and imperative to the effect that the Court of Appeal cannot take any further step in the appeal or subject after the expiration of sixty (60) days.
Chief Registrar’s Statement: Further to the foregoing, may we draw your attention to what the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Umar Bangari, was quoted to have said by the Channels Television in its news program of 7-8 pm on Wednesday, November 22, 2023, that: “The Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal Mister Umar Bangari, has cleared the air on the controversies surrounding the judgment delivered by the Court on the Kano Governorship Election dispute. In reaction, Bangari said that what happened in the judgment body was a typo error that did not in any way invalidate or change the findings and conclusion of the Court. The Chief Registrar assures that the error would be rectified once parties in the matter file a formal application to that effect. He cited Order 23 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Handbook, which empowers the court to correct any clerical error once detected by the court or any of the parties in the matter.”
Application for Correction: In the above-quoted excerpts from the interview granted to the Channels Television by the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, the following again becomes very germane “… that the error would be rectified once parties in the matter file a formal application to that effect.” We are not aware that any of the parties has filed any application to correct any error. Even at that, judicial precedents are countless as to the procedure to follow, and which court has jurisdiction to take such an application, after the expiration of the sixty (60) days mandatorily benchmarked by the Constitution.
Constitutional Right of Appeal: Today is the seventh day, effective from Friday, November 17, 2023, since the delivery of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. We repeat that, out of the fourteen days mandatorily prescribed for our client to file his Notice and Grounds of Appeal to the Supreme Court, he is left with just seven (7) days; and it is only fair that he should be allowed to exercise his constitutional right of appeal without any inhibition, within the fraction of days left for him.
We reiterate that this response has been borne out of a compelling duty and responsibility to the administration of justice, and, as counsel, it is our responsibility to draw attention to these salient statutory imperatives.
Yours faithfully,
PP: Wole Olanipekun & Co.
Chief Wole Olanipekun, CFR, SAN
WOLE OLANIPEKUN & CO LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
