OWOLADES PETITION DISMISSAL: LET THE COURT RECORD SPEAKS ON WEDNESDAY THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. Petitioner absent. 1st Respondent represented by Waliu Salimon. 2nd Respondent represented by Kolapo Halimi (member) 3rd Respondent represented not represented. B.J Adebayo Esq. with 3 Others for the Petitioner. Adewale Afolabi Esq. for 1st Respondent with 10 Others. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed Esq. with 4 others for the 2nd Respondent. Ayotunde Ogunleye Esq. with 3 Others for the 3rd Respondent. Adetayo Esq: We have 2 processes before the Tribunal. One filed on 22/12/14- Notice of discontinuance. We seek to withdraw same as it does not comply with the law. The second one was filed today. Afolabi Esq: No objection. Abdulrasheed Esq: Ogunleye Esq: We have no objection to the application to withdraw. Tribunal: The notice of discontinuance filed by the Petitioner on 22/12/14, having been withdrawn, is hereby struck out. (Sgd) Hon. Justice E.N Kpojime (Chairman)8/12/2015 (Sgd) (Sgd) Hon. Justice V.I Ofesi Hon. Justice A.I.Kutigi (Member) (Member) 8/12/2015 8/12/2015 Adedayo Esq: We have a motion which we filed today. We are ready to move same. Afolabi Esq: We were served this morning in Court. We are ready for it. Abdulrasheed Esq: I apply that Bashiru Esq should handle the proceedings. Bashiru Esq: We are ready to proceed. Ogunleye Esq: I am also ready Adedayo Esq: Our motion dated 8/1/2015 and filed the same day is brought pursuant to section 29(1)(3) and (4) of the Electoral Act 2014 as amended, and inherent jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It seeks an order of this Tribunal enabling the Petitioner/Applicant to withdraw the petition. The grounds under which the motion is brought are stated on the motion paper. It is supported by a 16 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Petitioner himself. We concede that there is no brief of argument accompanying the motion. Nonetheless, I urge that it be granted in the interest of justice. Afolabi Esq: While not opposing the application we are entitled to cost under paragraph 32 of the Electoral Act. I urge the Tribunal to use its discretion and award cost of #5 million only. In considering this cost. I urge the Tribunal to consider the circumstances surrounding this case, the out of pocket expenses incurred by us, the duration of the case, the number of appearances by the parties and their counsel. The Petitioner did not prosecute this case diligently from day one. We are bound by the record of the court. The Respondent never asked for any adjournment and there was no time the Tribunal did not sit. It is the Petitioner that was always asking for adjournment. The Petitioner had written a letter to the President Court of Appeal to constitute another panel. He later withdrew this letter. I urge the Tribunal to consider the conduct of the Petitioner. I urge the Tribunal to award heavy cost. Bashiru Esq: While not opposing the application we wish to state that ordinarily the application is incompetent. It depicts tardiness on the part of the Petitioner and his counsel. All the grounds for this application are speculative, hypothetical and is calculated to scandalize the judicial process before this Tribunal. The contents of the affidavit should be deprecated by the Tribunal in its ruling. The contents of the affidavit are contemptuous of this Tribunal. It is enough for this Tribunal to invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction against the deponent. The appropriate order to make in the circumstance is to dismiss the petition. We ask for cost of #10 million. I urge that wasted cost should be awarded against the counsel. I rely on the case APGA v. Umeh (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 19 at 36. Ogunleye Esq: I equally will be asking for punitive and exemplary cost. I adopt the submission of both counsels to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Hearing in this petition commenced on 14/11/14. No day that the Tribunal did not sit. We were served with subpoena to produce certain document and resources in the production of the said documents only to be faced with this application. The grounds for this application have no place in this application. This application is an abuse of court process. I ask for #25 million as punitive and exemplary cost. Adedayo Esq: We are not mindful to the fact that cost follows an event. However cost can only be awarded on the ordinary principle of reasonable out of pocket expenses. The award of cost is not necessarily to punish. The discretion to award cost is to be used judiciously and judicially. What my learned friends are asking for as cost is outrageous. The issue of abuse of Court process does not arise in this petition. We propose #5,000.00 to each Respondent. Tribunal: The Petitioner was one of the candidates, who contested for governorship election that took place in Osun State on 9th August, 2014. Aggrieved by the outcome of the election he filed a petition before this Tribunal on 30/8/14. This Tribunal commenced the hearing of this petition on 30/10/14 with the pre-trial at the conclusion of which of which the Petitioner opened his case by tendering some documents which are Exhibits before the Tribunal. Out of the 14 days the Petitioner had to present his case, he has so far utilized about 8 days. Within these 8 days, no single witness has been called. The Petitioner taday_8/1/15 filed a motion on notice seeking in the main the withdrawal of the petition. He has stated 11 grounds as the basis for his application. The motion is supported by a 16 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Petitioner himself. The grounds for the petition and the facts in the supporting affidavit are basically the same. The grounds according to the Petitioner are basically that since the Tribunal statutorily has only 180 days to determine this petition it is practically impossible for this task to be accomplished within the remaining period of about 48 days. The Petitioner is basically shifting the blame on the Tribunal as his reason for this application. As rightly pointed out by counsel to the Respondents, the record of this Tribunal show that the Petitioner has not been diligent in the prosecution of this petition. Several adjournments have been granted at his instance. To now turn around and blame the Tribunal for his inability to prosecute his petition is quite unfortunate. It is unfortunate that such a conduct should come from a member of the bar who has the duty to protect the image of this Tribunal. The Petitioner should have been bold enough to admit the fact that he is unable to prove his case and honourably withdrawn same instead of looking for a scape goat. The Tribunal has never complained of its inability to hear and determine the petition. We entirely agree with the Respondents that the grounds for this application, apart from being contemptuous are speculative. We however accept the belated apology by Adedayo Esq on behalf of the Petitioner. We only hope such a situation will not rise again in future. Having said that and in view of the fact that evidence has been adduced in this petition, we hereby make an order dismissing the petition No. EPT/GOV/OS/02/14. The Petitioner is to pay each Respondent #50,000.00 as cost. (Sgd) Hon. Justice E.N Kpojime (Chairman) 8/12/2015 (Sgd) (Sgd) Hon. Justice V.I Ofesi Hon. Justice A.I.Kutigi (Member) (Member) 8/12/2015 8/12/2015
Posted on: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:41:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015