The Hope Democratic Party (HDP) has returned to the Supreme Court with a motion urging it to reverse itself in the judgment delivered on October 3 dismissing its appeal filed against the election of President Muhammadu Buhari in the February 23, presidential election.
In the said motion, the party claimed that the judgment delivered by Justice Mary Peter Odili in favour of Buhari was invalid and unconstitutional on the ground that it was based on technicalities of law rather than merit and justice.
In the motion brought pursuant to Order 8, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules and Sections 6 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution as well as Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, the party and its presidential candidate, Chief Ambrose Owuru, pleaded with the court to restore their appeal for fresh hearing on merit.
Besides, counsel to the appellants, Chukwunonyerem Njoku, who filed the motion, insisted that the dismissal of their appeal on October 3 on technical ground was without compliance with the mandatory procedure of law.
The fresh motion, predicated on eight grounds, indicated that the appeal dismissed on preliminary objection of Buhari without requisite applications after it filed briefs and incorporation of notice of objection without leave of the apex court was a nullity and liable to be set aside.
Other ground is that by virtue of Order 8 upon which the dismissal was based, an appellant whose appeal has been dismissed under the rule may apply by notice of motion that the appeal be restored and heard on merit.
The appellants maintained that there were exceptional circumstances as required by law to cause the restoration of the appeal having been dismissed on technical ground without respondents first applying for or granted leave to prevent ambush or surprise to them to prevent the hearing of the appeal on merit and affirm their claim as winners of February 16 presidential referendum election.
They further claimed that the decision of the court arising from respondents’ ambush, intimidation, misdirection of court and non compliance with the strict rules and procedures for hearing notice of preliminary objection is invalid and a nullity in law and liable to be set aside.
A 10-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion with number SC/1110/2019 and deposed to by one Odion Peter Olhoaye, a legal practitioner in the law firm of AA Owuru, claimed that the appellants filed notice of appeal dated August 28, 2019, from the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal to the Supreme Court from their personal record when judgment was withheld, held back and delayed by the tribunal.
They averred that following the last minute release of the judgment by the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, additional grounds were hurriedly filed and mistakenly titled “Notice of Appeal” instead of “Additional Grounds”.
The two appellants insisted that a mere mistake in the title “Notice of Appeal” instead of “Additional Grounds of Appeal” was not enough ground for Supreme Court to dismiss their appeal on that technicality.
Besides, the appellants further claimed that the Supreme Court jurisdiction had not been fully activated because motion for substituted service on Buhari who up till September 27, 2019, evaded service of court process was yet to be moved or withdrawn in the court’s record before the court was misled into dismissing the appeal on technical objection.
Appellants further contended that the Supreme Court was under a duty in the interest of justice to first dispose of all outstanding applications and motions before determining any issue that touched on the substantive appeal.