The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed Thursday August 29 for judgement in the appeal filed by Chief Oluwarotimi Akeredolu of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and Chief Olusola Oke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the election of Governor Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo State.
Akeredolu and Oke are challenging the result of the October 20, 2012 election that brought Mimiko into office for the second time.
Akeredolu, in his appeal before the court, said that there was multiple registration by members of the Labour Party (LP) that sponsored Mimiko during the election.
A full panel of the apex court headed by Justice Walter Onnoghen also struck out the name of the second appellant in the first appeal, ACN having merged with other parties to form the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The court fixed the date for judgement after listening to arguments of all parties in the two suits.
Counsel to Mimiko, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), after announcing his appearance, had urged the attention of the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the second appellant in the first appeal, ACN, is no longer in existence as it has submerged to form another party which was not before the court.
Counsel to Akeredolu, Wole Aina, urged the court to refuse taking judicial notice that ACN is no longer in existence since there is no evidence before the court to prove this but on the alternative moved an application to substitute the name ACN for APC.
Counsel to Labour Party, Yusuf Ali (SAN) submitted that the court can take judicial notice of a notorious fact like that of the instant case, adding that no one of school age will say he is not aware of the death of ACN as being submerged into APC.
After listening to the submissions of all parties, the court stood the matter down for ruling.
In its ruling, the apex court held that it was the duty of the second appellant to inform the court of the submerge of ACN into APC.
“We have carefully gone through the provision of Section 109(2)(g) and 97 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended which the second appellant drew our attention to.
“It does not avail the appellant as the section deals with the candidate and not the party as in this instant case.
“We agree with the submission of the INEC counsel that his court lacks jurisdiction to grant the application because doing so will amount to amendment of the appeal.
“The application is hereby refused, consequently, the name of the second appellant is hereby struck out”.
The Court had earlier fixed September 24 to commence hearing in the appeals but following protests from some quarters that the September 24 will be outside the mandatory 60 days to determine the election petition appeals, the CJN adjusted the hearing date to Tuesday.
