GOVERNOR, EKITI STATE V. CHAIRMAN, ILEJEMEJE L.G. (2006)

Background

This case arose from an appeal heard on 1st February 2006 concerning the constitution of the Court of Appeal panel and the validity of the decisions rendered. The panel that originally heard the appeal included Hon. Justices M.S. Muntaka-Coomassie, A. J. Ikongbeh, and H. M. Ogunwumiju. However, during the reading of the judgment on 6th March 2006, Hon. Justice Tijjani Abdullahi, who had not been on the original panel, contributed to the judgment.

Issues

The principal issues raised in this appeal centered around:

1. Whether the participation of a judge not present during the hearing in rendering a judgment results in the judgment being a nullity.
2. Whether the appeal could be reconsidered by the original panel or if it must be heard de novo.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that:

1. A court is competent to deliver a judgment as long as it is properly constituted at the time of the hearing, as outlined in Section 247(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
2. In cases involving multiple judges, the judgment can still stand if it is delivered by a majority of judges who were present at the hearing, despite any contributions from judges not present.

Court Findings

The Court found the following:

1. The panel that delivered the judgment had one member not on the original panel; thus, their contribution raised questions about the judgment's validity.
2. The presence of conflicting precedents from the Supreme Court created a dilemma in determining the judgment's status as a nullity or merely an irregularity.

Conclusion

The court ultimately concluded that the judgment delivered on 6th March 2006, despite its complexities, was not a nullity but an irregularity that did not merit a rehearing of the appeal. The earlier judgment in Shuaibu v. N.A.B. Ltd was preferred over the later conflicting decision in Ubwa v. Tiv Area Traditional Council.

Significance

This ruling underscores the importance of judicial consistency and the interpretation of procedural irregularities. It highlights the principle that a court's power to adjudicate is derived statutorily, emphasizing that a composition error may not warrant nullifying a decision if the majority opinion by the judges present is upheld.