In separate judgments, the Supreme Court predicated its decision on the same legal pedestal and reasoning.

The apex court held that the verdicts of the appear  court, the bases upon which the appeals went to the Supreme Court, were a “nullity” because the reasons for the judgments were delivered outside the mandatory 60 days allowed by the 1999 constitution.

Delivering the lead judgment in the appeal filed by Chief Great Ogboru of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP), seeking to set aside the decision of the Delta State Election Tribunal, which upheld Uduaghan election, Justice Tanko Muhammed held that the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Benin Division, which Ogboru has appealed against is a nullity and thereby cannot stand.

Consequently, the apex court upheld the judgment of the lower Tribunal, which had earlier endorsed Uduaghan as a winner of the election.

The court noted that the appeal court on January 5 this year gave its judgment but reserved its reason for the judgment to January 27, this year.

From November 11, last year, when the Tribunal delivered its judgment to January 27, this year, when the court of appeal gave its reasons was more than 60 days allowed by the constitution.

He held that the court of appeal had no power to defer reasons for its judgment on governorship election petition since it was not the last court.

He said: “Judgment and reasons are inseparable twins which must be given together. There can be no judgment without reasons.”

He held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have given its reasons for its judgment on a different date other than the day it delivered the judgment.

Posted by admin on Mar 3 2012. Filed under Delta, Imo, Judiciary, State News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry