Background
This case arose from the Osun State Gubernatorial Election held on September 22, 2018, where Senator Ademola Nurudeen Adeleke (1st appellant) of the People’s Democratic Party (2nd appellant) contended against Adegboyega Isiaka Oyetola (2nd respondent) of the All Progressives Congress (3rd respondent). The election results showed that the 1st appellant had the highest votes (254,698), while the 2nd respondent closely trailed with 254,345 votes. However, the election was declared inconclusive, leading to a rerun where the 2nd respondent was declared the winner. Dissatisfied, the appellants petitioned the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal seeking various reliefs, including declaring the rerun as invalid.
Issues
The primary legal issues for consideration were:
- Whether the judgment delivered by the tribunal was a nullity due to the absence of a member during the hearing.
- The appropriate reliefs that the tribunal could grant and its jurisdiction in this matter.
- The effect of null judgment on appeals and the legal status of such judgments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court affirmed that a judgment delivered by a panel, wherein one judge did not hear the arguments or participate in the proceedings, constitutes a nullity. The tribunal's decision was void as it operated beyond its jurisdiction and failed to adhere to essential procedural requirements, making its findings and related orders unenforceable.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court concluded that:
- The lower court rightly observed that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought by the appellants because it could not query the validity of INEC’s guidelines.
- The preliminary objection raised against the appeal was inappropriate as preliminary objections are only suitable for challenging the hearing of the appeal, not specific grounds.
- The case was essentially academic, as the crux of the ruling revolved around the nullity of the previous judgment which voided all claims, making any further issues moot.
Conclusion
The appeal was struck out, with the Supreme Court determining that because the foundational judgement had been discarded as null, no further legal recourse could derive from it.
Significance
This case underscores the critical nature of procedural integrity in electoral jurisprudence, emphasizing that any defect at the tribunal's formation can render subsequent judgments void. Furthermore, it highlights how appellate courts regard jurisdictional issues as paramount, prioritizing them over substantive legal questions raised in appeals.