Fw: [Oguta] THE FINALITY OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS: UZO

56 views
Skip to first unread message

paul ifezuruoha

unread,
Jan 27, 2020, 6:34:53 AM1/27/20
to Alexandra Oputa' via Oguta, President OUA, Faith-Michael Uzoka, ogutaeurope_googlegroups.com, og...@googlegroup.com
 For those who offer to support abnormalities because of anticipated personal selfish gains. Look far and think deep. Ponder on what just have happened to the election rerun candidate who was shot by his own security personnel. Party affiliation, love for individual candidate all means noting to me but priority to truth and honesty always inform and determine my stand. Oguta Ancestors through God will continue to show me the true path.



Without Culture there's no basis for Relationships

But for God, we the Ifezuruoha family stand ovation for Oguta Ameshi Ancestors

Comrade Ifezuruoha P.N. Jr




----- Forwarded Message -----
From: 'ETHELBERT UZOKWE' via oguta <og...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020, 9:35:53 PM GMT+1
Subject: Re: [Oguta] THE FINALITY OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS: UZO

Thanks Paul. The truth is that he has always against Oguta people in all his write-up. But he is not the only law in Oguta. 

Below is from a man who have seen it all in Nigeria law system. A man of Integrity!!

Does the Supreme Court Possess the Powers to review it's earlier decision?

Delivering the lead judgment in Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya [1989] 13 NWLR (Pt.109) 250 at page 275A Justice Oputa also known as the 'Socrates' of the Supreme Court considered the powers of the Supreme Court (as the final Court in the land) to review its earlier decisions and said:

"We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human-beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this Court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions. Similarly, the Court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this Court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be over-ruled. This Court has the power to over-rule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error."

Chukwudifu Oputa JSC in Adegoke Motors Vs. Adesanya.

When Men had Integrity.

 

Best Regards,

Ethel

Robert Louis Stevenson said, "Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant."

 

 

Ethelbert Uzokwe said, "My certificate reads Electrical Engineering not Magical Engineering."




On Sunday, January 26, 2020, 11:51:07 AM CST, 'paul ifezuruoha' via oguta <og...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


@ Mr Oputa needless of asking for or against.  The position is very clear.  How on earth can any honest being identify with such level of rascality and impunity in the name of profession call law and game call politics. It is only those characterized by failure,  fear of competition,  dishonesty and envious attitude  that will do so.  But we are watching. We are not lawyers but will not want to be one if this remains the way cases are handled by illiterate lawyers. 


On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 5:37 pm, 'Chris Ochijeh' via oguta
Thank you Mr. Tyson. Let me ask you, are you with us or against us?

On Sunday, January 26, 2020, 8:52:55 AM EST, 'Alexandra Oputa' via oguta <og...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


Thank you very much for this very well written post, it explains a lot to non lawyers like me. God bless.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2020, at 3:34 AM, Tyson Uzonwanne <tysono...@gmail.com> wrote:

THE FINALITY OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS: UZODIMMA V. IHEDIOHA IN PERSPECTIVE.

BY
Tyson Uzonwanne


Since the order by the Supreme Court declaring that Hope Uzodimma be sworn in as the lawful winner of the governorship election in Imo state, Ihedioha and the PDP has not rested on their oars in a bid to twist the arms of the Supreme Court for a review of the judgment.

In the light of this, without prejudice to any aggrieved party, it has become imperative to have a peep into the dry letters of the law in order to have an informed opinion of the situation devoid of sentiment, being that the court gave a decision which conveyed a clare intention. Therefore, the question is, when the Supreme Court gives such clear and unequivocal judgment, does it still have the jurisdiction to review or sit on appeal on such judgment? 

From all indications it seems as though the Constitution makes no provision to the question as to whether the Supreme Court can adjudicate on the same matter it has already decided.

However, at a glance s.235 of the Constitution states that ‘Without prejudice to the powers of the President or of the Governor of a state with respect to prerogative of mercy, no appeal shall lie to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court’

By virtue of s.235 does this mean that an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court filed by an aggrieved party may not be heard by the Supreme Court?

The position has been laid to rest in the 2014 decision of the Supreme Court in CITEC INTERNATIONAL ESTATE LTD & ORS v. FRANCIS & ORS (2014) LPELR-22314(SC).

The Supreme Court Per OKORO, J.S.C. (Pp. 27-28, paras. D-A) stated, ”…Having said that may I state that by virtue of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal over its own judgment. The provision gives a stamp of finality to any decision of the Supreme Court. There is no constitutional provision for the review of the judgment of the Supreme Court by itself. See Eleazor Obioha V. Innocent Ibero & Anor (1994) 1 NWLR (pt.322) 503. However, it has been held by this court that the Supreme Court possesses inherent power to set aside its judgment in appropriate cases but that such inherent jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction as though the matter before it is another appeal, intended to afford the losing litigants yet another opportunity to re-state or re-argue their appeal.”

Again in a much earlier decision by the Supreme Court in ALAO V. ACB LTD.(2000) LPELR-408(SC), the latter position was maintained. The Supreme Court decided that:

“There is no constitutional provision for the review of the judgments of the Supreme Court by itself and that where the court has decided an issue and the decision of the court is truly embodied in some judgment or order that has been made effective, then the court cannot reopen the matter and cannot substitute a different decision in place of the one which had been recorded. Obaseki JSC at page 212 of the report observed: 

“The powers or inherent powers of the court of law are powers which enable it effectively effectually to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it. The jurisdiction given to the Supreme Court by the Constitution is to hear and determine the matters set out and specified in Section 212(1) and (2) and Section 213(1) and (2)(a,b,c,d,e and f) of the Constitution. In the course of the discharge of its main duty of adjudication, the court takes and expresses its decision which it intends to give in the matter in writing and delivers it. See Section 258(1) of the Constitution. If the decision is what the court intends to give in the matter, that is the end of the adjudication process. If the expression used does not accurately convey the court’s intention both Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 and Section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution enable the court to make the necessary correction but if the terms of the judgment correctly conveys the intention of the court, neither the inherent powers of the court nor Order 8 Rule 16 Supreme Court Rules 1985 allows an alteration in the judgment to convey a different intention. I cannot therefore see any conflict between the two provisions. Learned Counsel for the applicants also contended that Section 6(6)(a) cannot be limited by the provision of Section 215 of the Constitution which reads: 

“Without prejudice to the powers of the President or of the Governor of a State with respect to the prerogative of mercy, no appeal shall be to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court.’ () This provision gives a stamp of finality to the determination by the Supreme Court. 

There is no constitutional provision for the review of the judgments of the Supreme Court by itself. Indeed, if there were, it would constitute an appeal into which category the present application falls. But as the Constitution and the law now stand, there cannot be an appeal questioning the decision of the Supreme Court to itself or to anybody. This is good for the integrity of the court as there must be finality to litigation when a matter has undergone two, three or four appeals”.

In the moment of Hope Uzodimma v. Ihedioha, the Supreme Court judgment and Order was unequivocal and cannot be said to had been given in error or could be seen to have a slip rule, or seen to convey misplaced intention of the learned justices of the Supreme Court.

Being that as it may, it is an exercise in futility and tantamount to being dead on arrival. This is according to the law of the land. The judgment may stand in precedence for subsequent cases which happens to be same on all fours, that is all things being equal.

--
To add a new member to Og...@googlegroups.com please send request to wad...@gmail.com or wad...@aol.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "oguta" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oguta+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oguta/CAAGPdk%2BASFCQpzR2numt%2B5Psc5bWmTx1-309b-j%2BgOAZFM4Z4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--
To add a new member to Og...@googlegroups.com please send request to wad...@gmail.com or wad...@aol.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "oguta" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oguta+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oguta/6641D16D-9A26-41AC-A7BD-615B79804C1E%40yahoo.com.

--
To add a new member to Og...@googlegroups.com please send request to wad...@gmail.com or wad...@aol.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "oguta" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oguta+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oguta/1161932848.574641.1580056667934%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
To add a new member to Og...@googlegroups.com please send request to wad...@gmail.com or wad...@aol.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "oguta" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oguta+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oguta/1236744126.609421.1580061053362%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
To add a new member to Og...@googlegroups.com please send request to wad...@gmail.com or wad...@aol.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "oguta" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oguta+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oguta/1538246339.675922.1580070944862%40mail.yahoo.com.
hope.jpg
hope2.jpg
hope3.jpg
hope4.jpg
hope5.jpg

paul ifezuruoha

unread,
Jan 27, 2020, 8:21:02 AM1/27/20
to Alexandra Oputa' via Oguta, President OUA, Faith-Michael Uzoka, ogutaeurope_googlegroups.com, og...@googlegroup.com
recious Ciou Ciou *ORLU PEOPLE SNUB, REJECT UZODINMA AT CHURCH*

*_...say "You're not the governor we voted"_*

*_By Eyewitness Reports_*

The driest reception to a supposed brand new governor took place today at the St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Amaifeke, venue of a Thanksgiving Mass by the traditional ruler of Amaifeke Community, Eze Okeke.

Governor Hope Uzodinma who attended as a Special Guest of Honour in the church and was called to address the congregation got an unexpected snub from members as not even a handful of them gave him an expected cheers.

Members were heard murmuring in disapproval of his being requested to speak to them. This is even as a voice shouted out loudly "governor e zuru ezu" (the stolen Governor).

The governor mounted the podium to address the people but got no cheering reception even as some people started walking out of the church with indifference.

Speaking to them upon the glaring discovery of the cold reception, Uzodinma appealed to them to "forgive me"

"I'm aware that I have many enemies among you. I am conscious of the hate from some of you and the love from most of you.

"But all I wish to appeal to and beg you is to please try your best to love me. Just give me some chance to prove to you that I came with the best interest of our people", the governor pleaded.

This however did not impress the people as some were heard openly snubbing him with facial attitude and telling him to go surrender the mandate to the owner.

Asked the reason for the cold reception to the governor, Ezinne Dorathy (not real name) explained that the governor was not the person they voted for.

"All he is telling us inside the church are things we have been hearing from him the past years as a senator. Did he even campaign here? Why should he come at this time to our church to toast us? Are we fools? Please tell him that Ihedioha is the governor we voted for, not him", she said with angry tone and walked away.





Without Culture there's no basis for Relationships

But for God, we the Ifezuruoha family stand ovation for Oguta Ameshi Ancestors

Comrade Ifezuruoha P.N. Jr


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages