The Supreme Court has scheduled July 12, 2017 for the final
Judgment on the PDP Vs. Sheriff & 4 others.
Thenigerialwyer recalls that the Supreme Court reserved judgment
Monday 22nd May,2017 in the appeal filed the sacked National
Caretaker Committee of the party led by Ahmed Makarfi.
The Makarfi Committee is by the appeal, challenging the February
17 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt division
declaring among others, that the Makarfi-led Committee is
illegal.
Monday, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief
Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen took arguments
from parties and informed that that judgment has been reserved, and
that a date will be communicated to them.
At the commencement of argument Monday, the court invited lawyer to
the Ali Modu Sheriff faction of the PDP to move his application,
with which he sought the striking out of the appeal.
Fagbemi argued that the judgment of the Court of Appeal having
not be set aside, Sheriff and members of the executive committee
remained the alter ego of the party and that only them could
validly file any court process in the name of the party.
“In urging your Lordships to grant the application, I will say
that the point here is not about the locus of counsel but about the
competence of the appeal, whether it was filed with authority or
not and whether or not the party in whose name the appeal was filed
has a right to withdraw the appeal.
“PDP is a corporate body, therefore the corporate personality is
defined in terms of the (party’s) constitution, which gives power,
and the decision of the lower court that has not been set aside or
suspended.
“If the party, through its directing minds, led by Ali Modu
Sheriff and backed by the constitution of the party and the
judgment of the Court of Appeal, have withdrawn the appeal, there
is evidence that they exercised their rights and their powers
rightly.
“Whoever is interested in the appeal can only come as an
interested party and not to file an appeal in the name of the
party,” Fagbemi said.
Lawyer to the Makarfi-led Committee, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) urged
the court to grant his client’s appeal, set aside the judgment of
the Court of Appeal and also dismiss the application seeking the
striking of the appeal.
“I urge your lordships not only to dismiss this application but
to do so with heavy cost.
“Apart from Rule 29 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule
27(1) and (4) of the rules also demonstrate that the application is
incompetent and the Supreme Court does not even have the vires to
countenance it.”
Olanipekun noted that Niyi Akintola (SAN), who represented
Sheriff and Oladipo against the PDP at the Federal High Court and
the Court of Appeal and who still represented the same clients at
the Supreme Court could not decide who should represent the PDP at
the apex court.
He said: “Appeal is a continuation of hearing. The initiator of
this application has shot themselves in both legs. Are they saying
they were respondents to a a non-competent respondent (the PDP) at
the lower court? It is short of words to say it is abuse of
process.”
Olanipekun prayed the court to grant his appeal and set aside
the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
Lawyer to Sheriff and Prof Wole Oladipo, Akin Olujinmi (SAN),
aligned with Fagbemi’s submission in relation to his
application.
Olujinmi added that he had in his preliminary objection raised a
similar issue of lack of authority on the part of the Makarfi
committee to file the appeal.
He said: “In urging your lordships to grant the application
filed by Lateef Fagbemi, we rely on all these processes and my own
application filed on March 16, 2017. I rely on all the processes
that I have identified.
“The issue we have raised in the application relates to the lack
of authority of the people who brought the appeal. It is
fundamental.
“The issue is very narrow and your lordships will have to
consider whether the appeal is filed in the name of the PDP without
authority is competent.
“The issue of counsel who represented the various parties at the
lower court is irrelevant. Apart from lack of authority to file the
appeal, there are no grounds to sustain the appeal.
“I urge your lordship to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit
and for being incompetent.”
On point of law, Fagbemi contended that Rule 29 of Rules of
Professional Conduct referred to by Olanipekun “does not apply to
the competence of the application seeking the striking out of the
appeal.”
Earlier court reelected the objection by Sheriff’s lawyer to the
motion by the Makarfi committee seeking leave to appeal on grounds
of mixed law and filed.
The court proceeded to grant the application after dismissing
objection and deemed the appeal as properly filed.
Other members of the court’s panel Justices Tanko Muhammad, Bode
Rhodes-Vivour, Kayode Ariwoola and Dattiji Muhammad.
Prominent members of the party, representing both sides of the
dispute were in court to witness proceedings.
Sheriff and Makarfi were in court in person. They sat on
opposing sides of the large courtroom.
Some of those who accompanied Sheriff were the Deputy National
Chairman of the faction, Cairo Ojugo, and Oladipo (Secretrary).
Those who came with Makarfi included a former Vice Chairman of
the party (South West), Chief Bode George, the present occupant of
the position in the faction, Chief Eddy Olafeso, former Deputy
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, Dayo
Adeyeye and Tom Ikimi.
The Supreme Court has scheduled July 12, 2017 for the final
Judgment on the PDP Vs. Sheriff & 4 others.
Thenigerialwyer recalls that the Supreme Court reserved judgment
Monday 22nd May,2017 in the appeal filed the sacked National
Caretaker Committee of the party led by Ahmed Makarfi.
The Makarfi Committee is by the appeal, challenging the February
17 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt division
declaring among others, that the Makarfi-led Committee is
illegal.
Monday, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief
Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen took arguments
from parties and informed that that judgment has been reserved, and
that a date will be communicated to them.
At the commencement of argument Monday, the court invited lawyer to
the Ali Modu Sheriff faction of the PDP to move his application,
with which he sought the striking out of the appeal.
Fagbemi argued that the judgment of the Court of Appeal having
not be set aside, Sheriff and members of the executive committee
remained the alter ego of the party and that only them could
validly file any court process in the name of the party.
“In urging your Lordships to grant the application, I will say
that the point here is not about the locus of counsel but about the
competence of the appeal, whether it was filed with authority or
not and whether or not the party in whose name the appeal was filed
has a right to withdraw the appeal.
“PDP is a corporate body, therefore the corporate personality is
defined in terms of the (party’s) constitution, which gives power,
and the decision of the lower court that has not been set aside or
suspended.
“If the party, through its directing minds, led by Ali Modu
Sheriff and backed by the constitution of the party and the
judgment of the Court of Appeal, have withdrawn the appeal, there
is evidence that they exercised their rights and their powers
rightly.
“Whoever is interested in the appeal can only come as an
interested party and not to file an appeal in the name of the
party,” Fagbemi said.
Lawyer to the Makarfi-led Committee, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) urged
the court to grant his client’s appeal, set aside the judgment of
the Court of Appeal and also dismiss the application seeking the
striking of the appeal.
“I urge your lordships not only to dismiss this application but
to do so with heavy cost.
“Apart from Rule 29 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule
27(1) and (4) of the rules also demonstrate that the application is
incompetent and the Supreme Court does not even have the vires to
countenance it.”
Olanipekun noted that Niyi Akintola (SAN), who represented
Sheriff and Oladipo against the PDP at the Federal High Court and
the Court of Appeal and who still represented the same clients at
the Supreme Court could not decide who should represent the PDP at
the apex court.
He said: “Appeal is a continuation of hearing. The initiator of
this application has shot themselves in both legs. Are they saying
they were respondents to a a non-competent respondent (the PDP) at
the lower court? It is short of words to say it is abuse of
process.”
Olanipekun prayed the court to grant his appeal and set aside
the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
Lawyer to Sheriff and Prof Wole Oladipo, Akin Olujinmi (SAN),
aligned with Fagbemi’s submission in relation to his
application.
Olujinmi added that he had in his preliminary objection raised a
similar issue of lack of authority on the part of the Makarfi
committee to file the appeal.
He said: “In urging your lordships to grant the application
filed by Lateef Fagbemi, we rely on all these processes and my own
application filed on March 16, 2017. I rely on all the processes
that I have identified.
“The issue we have raised in the application relates to the lack
of authority of the people who brought the appeal. It is
fundamental.
“The issue is very narrow and your lordships will have to
consider whether the appeal is filed in the name of the PDP without
authority is competent.
“The issue of counsel who represented the various parties at the
lower court is irrelevant. Apart from lack of authority to file the
appeal, there are no grounds to sustain the appeal.
“I urge your lordship to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit
and for being incompetent.”
On point of law, Fagbemi contended that Rule 29 of Rules of
Professional Conduct referred to by Olanipekun “does not apply to
the competence of the application seeking the striking out of the
appeal.”
Earlier court reelected the objection by Sheriff’s lawyer to the
motion by the Makarfi committee seeking leave to appeal on grounds
of mixed law and filed.
The court proceeded to grant the application after dismissing
objection and deemed the appeal as properly filed.
Other members of the court’s panel Justices Tanko Muhammad, Bode
Rhodes-Vivour, Kayode Ariwoola and Dattiji Muhammad.
Prominent members of the party, representing both sides of the
dispute were in court to witness proceedings.
Sheriff and Makarfi were in court in person. They sat on
opposing sides of the large courtroom.
Some of those who accompanied Sheriff were the Deputy National
Chairman of the faction, Cairo Ojugo, and Oladipo (Secretrary).
Those who came with Makarfi included a former Vice Chairman of
the party (South West), Chief Bode George, the present occupant of
the position in the faction, Chief Eddy Olafeso, former Deputy
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, Dayo
Adeyeye and Tom Ikimi.