IKPEAZU VS OGAH: WILL THIS JUDGEMENT STAND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ?

19

It is often very confusing and disturbing the decisions that most times emanates from our temple of Justice in Nigeria. Often this rulings and decisions enforces the idea that it is either the judges do not know what they are doing or they were induced to do so, especially in cases where predence are on ground.

In this matter of false tax information representation, the decision of the Court of Appeal completely counters the former decision of the Supreme Court that ordered the Federal High Court to look  into the matter based on its merit, the Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction , but the Court of Appeal decision has turn around to reject all position agreed by the Supreme Court.

It is either the Appeal Court is now above the Supreme Court or our legal system has been so compromised that our judges no longer value higher decisions.

Based on the decisions of Appeal Court yesterday, it clearly shows that the Supreme Court has alot to do concerning this matter.

***************************************

WHO WILL WIN ABIA STATE GOVERNORSHIP 2019? VOTE NOW

Please read this news which emanated from the Supreme Court decision ordering the High Court to judge the matter based on merit (Sahara Reporters)

***************************************

The governor of Abia state, Okezie Ikpeazu is in fresh trouble as the Nigerian Supreme Court has ordered the Federal High Court to retry  the case challenging the fraudulent payment of taxes that enabled his qualification to contest the governorship election of the state.

 

Some of his opponents in the  People’s Democratic Party led by Obasi Uba Ekagbara and Chukuemeka Mba had dragged him to the Federal High Court via suit FHC/ABJ/ CS/1086/2014 over his eligibility to contest in the primary election conducted for governorship aspirants of the party in the state during the last election in 2015. Even though he won the primary, his opponents alleged that he did not qualify to contest as he did not pay his taxes of years 2011, 2012 and 2013 as at when due.

 

The plaintiffs dragged Ikpeazu, the People’s Democratic Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and produced convincing evidence at the Federal High Court that taxes allegedly paid for the three years were paid on the same day and therefore faulted the authenticity of Ikpeazu’s tax clearance certificate and the information contained in his INEC “Form CF100”. Ikpeazu had no answer to the allegations but challenged the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to hear the case. The trial court overruled his objection, but the Court of Appeal sided with him and ruled that the case ought to have been filed at the Abia State High Court.

 

Dissatisfied with the judgment Ikpeazu’s opponents took the matter to the Supreme Court. In its judgment handed down last Friday by five Supreme Court justices led by Justice Mohammed Muntaka -Coomassie, the court faulted the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to try the case.The justices then remitted the case back to the Federal High Court for the expedited trial of the tax fraud case challenging the eligibility of Ik[eazu to contest the governorship election. And to ensure that the hearing is not delayed the Supreme Court ordered the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria to ensure that  the case is heard and determined expeditiously.

 

If Gov. Ikpeazu loses the pre-election case at the Federal High Court, he will be ordered to vacate the office of the governor of Abia state since he was not competent to have contested talk less of winning the election. The recent ruling shows that Ikpeazu has not been able to counter the serious allegation from his opponents that he fraudulently and criminally evaded payment of taxes to the federal government until he began running for election.

 

In another development, the court of appeal, sitting in Owerri has ruled that it was Alex Otti of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and not Ikpeazu won the governorship election conducted in Abia state on April 11, 2015.  An appeal filed by the embattled Governor is pending at the Supreme Court for adjudication. If Ikpeazu loses at the Supreme Court, he would also be forced to vacate office.

Sahara Reporters

 

 

For publication of your news content, articles, videos or any other news worthy materials, please send to abiafactsnews@gmail.com or abiafacts@yahoo.com . For more enquiry, please call +234-903-332-9775 or whatsapp +234-803-792-3602. To place advert, please call 08037923602.

19 Comments
  1. Monday Iweh says

    Going to supreme court will be exercise in futility because the matter had earlier been decided in a matter between Ikpeazu vs Oti. Unless ogah still want to spend more money for his lawyers who could not advise him otherwise in other to collect their legal fees.

    1. Morgan O Kalu says

      Which matter was decided before? This is a different matter so let’s wait for the final judgement at the Supreme Court. We all know that our judiciary is shameless and corrupt. Whoever it favors rules. What we’re praying for is God’s intervention. Let his will be done in Abia State.

  2. Nwankwo Prince says

    Explaining that the process was wrong, Justice Bdilya said that on the motion which led to the appeal, three people indicated themselves as lawyers and signed the document while the law says only an identifiable legal practitioner can do so. He added that it was not the business of the court to embark on a voyage of helping a litigant decide who filed his case. Justice Bdilya said:”As such, the lower court erred in its deciding for the litigants,” he insisted. “To this end the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter because the initiation process of the suit was not properly done. “Therefore any decision taken by it flowing from that suit is null and void”. The Appeal Court ruled on three out of six appeals filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, under which Governor Ipeakzu won the governorship election. According to the court, the issues are identical and as such it adopts the ruling of the previous judgement. While reading the decision of the court, Justice Bdliya insisted that the evidence raised by the faulty originating summons could not have been easily resolved because they were contentious and hostile. He said that an amendment could not have cured a faulty originating summons. Explaining the court’s decision further he said that the orders made by the lower court could only be valid if the two issues raised were already decided to be valid. “The lower trial judge was not right in his findings and decisions,” he insisted. On whether the lower court delved into the main issue in deciding an interlocutory injunction, the Appeal Court said it was imperative to examine the record of the appeal. The Justice also said that his findings showed that the outcome of the case would definitely affect the mind of the High Court Judge when he eventually goes to the main suit because he had taken a stand on the tax document submitted to INEC to be faulty. “A judge is expected not to take any position on any issues in the main suit because doing so will prejudice the main suit,” Justice Bdliya explained. He further told the court that the burden of proof laid on the Governor who was the fourth respondent in the appeal to prove that what he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission as tax document was not faulty. This, he said was because “it is he who alleges that should prove”. “The issue of tax clearance which puts the burden of proof on the Governor on the tax issues, was not an issue, with regards to a civil servant or public officers whose tax is deducted at source and of which the first respondent was one. His tax income will be assessed by the tax office. “I do not agree with the trial judge that it is the second respondent that is the governor that supplied the information to the tax office. “That would have been true if he had a private business on the side, for which he would have been required by law to declare to the tax office. “But as a civil servant his tax is deducted at source and imputed by the tax office. “If the trial judge cannot understand how civil servants tax clearance works he ought to have sought clarifications,” he stressed.what do u want supreme to say if not the same,the judges have made it clear that ovi is a civil servant,i thought u people are educated, Abang is a corrupt judge,well very soon God will expose him.as for AFN..ogah will give u people money to spray fake information But we always there also to counter.

    1. Jude Ogbonna says

      thanks for posting the full judgement statement not the half inconsequential one abiafacts newspaper posted

  3. Nwankwo Prince says

    Explaining that the process was wrong, Justice Bdilya said that on the motion which led to the appeal, three people indicated themselves as lawyers and signed the document while the law says only an identifiable legal practitioner can do so. He added that it was not the business of the court to embark on a voyage of helping a litigant decide who filed his case. Justice Bdilya said:”As such, the lower court erred in its deciding for the litigants,” he insisted. “To this end the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter because the initiation process of the suit was not properly done. “Therefore any decision taken by it flowing from that suit is null and void”. The Appeal Court ruled on three out of six appeals filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, under which Governor Ipeakzu won the governorship election. According to the court, the issues are identical and as such it adopts the ruling of the previous judgement. While reading the decision of the court, Justice Bdliya insisted that the evidence raised by the faulty originating summons could not have been easily resolved because they were contentious and hostile. He said that an amendment could not have cured a faulty originating summons. Explaining the court’s decision further he said that the orders made by the lower court could only be valid if the two issues raised were already decided to be valid. “The lower trial judge was not right in his findings and decisions,” he insisted. On whether the lower court delved into the main issue in deciding an interlocutory injunction, the Appeal Court said it was imperative to examine the record of the appeal. The Justice also said that his findings showed that the outcome of the case would definitely affect the mind of the High Court Judge when he eventually goes to the main suit because he had taken a stand on the tax document submitted to INEC to be faulty. “A judge is expected not to take any position on any issues in the main suit because doing so will prejudice the main suit,” Justice Bdliya explained. He further told the court that the burden of proof laid on the Governor who was the fourth respondent in the appeal to prove that what he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission as tax document was not faulty. This, he said was because “it is he who alleges that should prove”. “The issue of tax clearance which puts the burden of proof on the Governor on the tax issues, was not an issue, with regards to a civil servant or public officers whose tax is deducted at source and of which the first respondent was one. His tax income will be assessed by the tax office. “I do not agree with the trial judge that it is the second respondent that is the governor that supplied the information to the tax office. “That would have been true if he had a private business on the side, for which he would have been required by law to declare to the tax office. “But as a civil servant his tax is deducted at source and imputed by the tax office. “If the trial judge cannot understand how civil servants tax clearance works he ought to have sought clarifications,” he stressed.what do u want supreme to say if not the same,the judges have made it clear that ovi is a civil servant,i thought u people are educated, Abang is a corrupt judge,well very soon God will expose him.as for AFN..ogah will give u people money to spray fake information But we always there also to counter.

  4. Darusalam Peterson says
  5. Darusalam Peterson says

    These ppl l….una no dey tire????

  6. Martin Njoku says

    Fool at 40 is a fool forever …if una like , go to ICJ .
    OVI will win.

  7. Chi Don says

    He will win because money is talking…. Nonsense Nigeria…

  8. Obilo Word says

    Just for a while. HE can’t buy the supreme Court. Ogah will laugh last

  9. Monday Iweh says

    Morgan stop deceiving yourself. I am surprise how some of you reason, anybody that used two hands to drag what does not belong to him is a thief. Your ogah has nothing to claim, he is just wasting his money and time.

    1. Darusalam Peterson says

      Gbaaaaammmmm!!! (Na So!)

  10. Chikodi Costly says

    Ogah n his cohort shld stop distracting OVI abeg, use ur money do beta tin so OVI go use his time do wat his supposed to do, all dis distraction is not helping him abeg

  11. Enyioma Irondi says

    i no of a truth dat supreme court had ruled on dis matter dat high court has de jurisdiction nd de originating summon are all ok nd if ovi found guilty he shuld vacate his seat.am surprise for appeal to say dat all tins ruled by supreme is null nd void,appeal nd supreme which is de highly court in nigerian?i hope dey havnt deceived ovi as dey did to otti.well let watch and see episode 3

  12. Ernest Ikechukwu says

    The judgement of the Appeal court can not stand at the Supreme Court. The main substance of the Litigation which is the”SUBMISSION OF FALSE INFORMATION” was not touched at all, even when OGAH’S Counsel reminded the presiding Judge of such case she handled in the past and how she pronounced that “any person that submitted False information whether relevant or not is not worthy of holding a public office”. The presiding Judge actually contradicted herself in this judgement.

  13. Stephen Ariba says

    G

  14. Monday Iweh says

    Irondi, there is nothing like episode, the matter is as good as concluded your ogah has nothing to claim let him face his criminal charge simple.

  15. Prince Collins Chidi Amadi says

    You folks think that supreme Court is justice abang court where he issues any kind of order as the persons money can purchase

  16. Godson Nwohamuo says

    There is nothing confusing in the judgment. The issue of jurisdiction that was earlier settled by the Supreme court is called territorial jurisdiction, this was never again in issue. However the variant of jurisdiction pronounced upon by the Court of Appeal pertains to incompetence of the originating processes, which my Lords found that it was not signed in accordance with due process of law, hence jurisdiction of the court was not properly activated, the net effect of this failure is nullity of any action premised on an incompetent process. Uche Ogah should heap the blame on sheer negligence of his legal team.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.