A Must Read: A Detailed X-ray of the CTC of Appeal Court Ruling on APP case Relisting.

A Must Read: A Detailed X-ray of the CTC of Appeal Court Ruling on APP case Relisting.

Osogbo, June 20, 2025.

By Miftau Adekunmi Adebowale 

I have taken my time to read the CTC. I believe think it's important to clarify some misinterpretations being peddled around.

Based on the Appeal Court CTC, these are some key takeaways:

1. Preliminary Objection of 3rd Respondent (OSSIEC) against Relisting Based on "Contempt" of Orders of Both Lower Court (High Court) and Appeal Court

Point 1: In resolving this, my Lord held that committal of contempt is a quasi-criminal offence which shouldn't be based on mere allegation, while noting that the only "possible" contempt of APC is in connection with the lower court judgement whose case is still pending again at the same lower court.

Excerpt: "Reading the preliminary objection and supporting affidavit, in context, it's obvious that the order of this court which is alleged to be breached is the decision of this court made on 13th January 2025, whereby this court dismissed appeal lodged by the 3rd Appellant/Respondent against the judgement in suit No FCH/OS/CS/103/2022 for lack of diligent prosecution. "It follows therefore, that searching for what substantive orders the 3rd Appellant/Respondent violated, one must have recourse or pay a visit to the judgement of the Federal High Court...".

Point 2: My Lord further held that there couldn't have been any contempt committed by APC against the Appeal Court since there was no substantive judgement of the court (Appeal Court) in the APP case under consideration. All that happened was only dismissal (the only process that connected the Appeal Court with the lower court) and no express resolution of the court (Appeal Court) was reached since it was not heard on merit.

Excerpt: "The said contempt is not against any direct order of this court. I say so, because the only connection this court has with the judgement of the lower court is that it dismissed the appeal lodged against the said judgement of the lower court for lack of prosecution on 13/1/2025."

Point 3: My Lord went further to give clarification on the viability and strength of the 'dismissal' order made on 13/1/2025 and averred that it meant to imply that it was as if APC never appealed the decision of the lower court making the lower court decision to be the only authority in the case (no decision of any higher court made on it). Hence, it's considered dead at the lower court and the said contempt of the Appeal Court is 'ex-facie curiae' (meaning contempt of court committed outside the presence of the judge or court proceedings).

Excerpt: "Of course, the dismissal of the appeal means that there has been no existing appeal against the judgement of the lower court, the said judgement stands as the authority."

Summary: The preliminary objection was clearly ruled in favour of APC with more clarifications on the actual status of the dismissed case of APP because the court believes there was no appeal against the lower court judgement in the first instance due to the dismissal, and as such, no substantive judgement of Appeal Court could have made the APC held in contempt if not for the lower court.

2. Motion on Notice - Core Grounds for Relisting 

Point 1: My Lord overlooked the technical aspect of the case as it relates to rules of the court in filing application and went ahead to hear the relisting case on merit.

Point 2: My Lord rescued himself from being put in a state of 'functus officio' (meaning that their Lordships at the Appeal Court had previously completed their task and could no longer act on the matter) on the case, by 1st Respondent (APP) and 3rd Respondent (OSSIEC) so that the court would not hear it on merit. However, my Lord went further to establish that the court is within its powers to consider the relisting case if it meets the required standards of Appeal Court rules, as the case was never prosecuted (or considered by the appellate court) due to non-transmission of records (not failure of brief of argument). 

Excerpt: "It is my firm opinion that to the extent of the basis of dismissal of this appeal is the failure to compile and transmit the record of appeal, this court has a window to review its decision... It's further my opinion that notwithstanding the use of the phrase 'this appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution' this court can still entertain the application to relist the appeal. This is for the simple reason that the said order or dismissal was not based on the merit of appeal and could not have been based on the merit since the appeal has not entered in this court by the transmission of the record of appeal ".

Point 3: My Lord, however, didn't allow the application because in his Lordship's wisdom, APC didn't show "good faith" in the prosection of the appeal - a condition that's critical in granting a relisting application.

Point 4: My Lord finally held that APC was not serious about APP case because its seriousness could be seen in the other PDP case which his Lordship believes it has been meritoriously resolved by the same court (with a substantive order and judgement) which naturally prevents his Lordship from even entertaining relisting application to avoid confusion. This is because his Lordship is of the opinion that the other PDP case has the same subject matter with that of APP and the court (Appeal Court) has leveraged that of PDP case to resolve the case of LG, instead of relisting the other case (APP) which the appellate court considered "not ever prosecuted and already dead at the lower court." Simply put, the only appeal in the sight of the Appeal Court which has been filed, heard meritoriously and judiciously ruled on, was that of PDP which already favours the APC chairmen.

Excerpt: "It's therefore obvious to me that the third applicant is not serious about the diligent prosecution of this appeal and wants to (sic) court in the sister appeal (Appeal No CA/AK/270/2022) may only lead to confusion and this court will resist such attempt to lure it to unwittingly sit on appeal or review its decision in Appeal No CA/AK/270/2022".

3. Concurring Positions of the Other Lords on the Panel 

It's a basic legal understanding that the decision in the lead judgement (since it has got the concurrence of others) holds the significance in any resolution. Also, whatever averments made in the concurring resolutions are done to the best of the knowledge at the disposal of their Lordships and such can't overrule the substance of the lead judgement.

Conclusion:

It's inferable from the CTC of the resolution on relisting case that, the Court of Appeal sees the PDP case (Appeal No CA/AK/270/2022) which was ruled in favour of the APC chairmen as the only live case which it has judiciously and meritoriously ruled on, while considering the APP case as one which was already dead at the lower court since it was never prosecuted (through the lack of record transmission) in alignment with the rules of Appeal Court. Therefore, the only live superior judgement in the case of Osun State Local Government administration is that of PDP (February 10th judgment) which remains the sole authority in the resolution of LG matter.

Miftau A. Adebowale, a political scientist writes from Ward 3, Ejigbo Local Government 

(Whatsapp: 08108525289)