Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors. (2007)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
R. D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.
This appeal has a chequered history. It was first heard by this court on 11th April, 2007. Ruling was delivered on 16th day of April, 2007 in which this court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The appeal was struck out.
The appellant was not satisfied with the decision of this court. He appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave the appeal accelerated hearing and delivered its judgment on 11th day of May, 2007. In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that this court was in error for declining jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
The appeal was remitted back to this court to be heard on the merit. The appeal was fixed to be heard on 22nd day of May, 2007 by this court. On 21st day of May, 2007 the 2nd respondent herein filed a motion on notice praying the court for an order staying proceedings in this appeal pending the time the Supreme Court gives reasons for its judgment. This application was argued on 22nd May, 2007 i.e. the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. Ruling on this application was delivered on 25th May, 2007 in which we granted stay of proceedings.
The appellant is dissatisfied with this decision. He appealed to the Supreme Court. The 2nd respondent also filed an application before the Supreme Court for correction of a clerical error. As things stand now, there is an appeal by the appellant against our ruling of 25th May, 2007. The appeal has been entered in the Supreme Court as No SC/126/07. There is also an application by the 2nd respondent for correction of a clerical error pending at the Supreme Court. This is the position when we were told we should hear the appeal.
We therefore fixed the appeal to be heard on 6th June, 2007. The appeal could not be heard on that day because some of the parties were not served. The matter was adjourned to 13th June, 2007 for hearing to enable all the parties to be served.
On the adjourned date Mr. J. B. Daudu learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the appeal was not ripe for hearing. His reasons are that this court has granted stay of proceedings of the appeal and that this stay has not been reversed by the Supreme Court nor vacated by this court. Secondly, there is a pending appeal in the Supreme Court against the ruling which said appeal has been entered in the Supreme Court. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this court must await the decision of the Supreme Court. Chief Amaechi Nwaiwu learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent aligned himself with the submissions of Mr. Daudu and submitted that the appeal was not ripe for hearing. Chief G. K. Gadzama learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent aligned himself with the submissions of the Mr. Daudu and Chief Nwaiwu and further submitted that since there is a valid order staying further proceedings in the appeal, this court cannot sit on appeal over its ruling and urged this court to await the determination of the appeal by the Supreme Court. Mr. Fagbemi learned senior counsel for the appellant urged the court to hear the appeal because we were ordered to do so by the Supreme Court and that this court is bound to follow the orders of the Supreme Court.
At this stage we asked the counsel for all the parties to address us whether or not taking into consideration the whole circumstances of this case, this court can hear the appeal at this stage. Chief Nwaiwu, Mr. Daudu and Chief Gadzama all senior counsel positively and unequivocally submitted that since there is a pending appeal at the Supreme Court and our order for stay of proceedings, this court cannot hear the appeal as of now. We must await the decision of the Supreme Court, Mr. Fagbemi on the other hand repeated his earlier submissions and further submitted that since it is the Supreme Court that ordered this court to hear the matter and since the Supreme Court is infallible, this court is duty bound to obey the orders of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Fagbemi is absolutely right that where the Supreme Court makes an order that order must be obeyed unreservedly. This court is bound to obey and carry out the orders of the Supreme Court without asking any question. This is the trite law. However, our present circumstances, is an exception from the normal rule. The order that we hear the appeal did not emanate from the Supreme Court sitting as a court. This is an administrative order. Let me hasten to add that this court is also bound to obey any administrative order of the Supreme Court where it will not create any problem to the administration of justice or is in conflict with the law.
In the present circumstances, the order we made for stay of proceedings is still subsisting. It has not been reversed or vacated as of now. There is also an appeal against our ruling, which has been entered in the Supreme Court. The appeal is still pending. As long as the matter is before the Supreme Court we have no power whatsoever to touch it. We have become functus officio. The Supreme Court in a plethora of cases has frowned at the attitude of a lower court, which dealt with a matter which was before a higher court.
The paramount duty of this court is to follow due process and administer justice in accordance with the law. We must follow the laid down procedure known to the law for to do otherwise will lead to confusion and anarchy. In the circumstance, it is our considered opinion that this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the appeal now until the appeal before the Supreme Court is determined.
As suggested by learned counsel for the parties, the withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant and the motion by the 2nd respondent would facilitate the expeditious hearing of the appeal.
Other Citations: (2007)LCN/2440(CA)
