Appeal court fixes 19 April for Ruling on Suit Against Akala

Having listened to the arguments of counsel in suit number FHC/IB/CS/2/2011 bordering on the legitimacy of Governor Adebayo Alao-Akala of Oyo State to contest the April Governorship poll under Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Justice S. A. Alagoa reserved ruling till Tuesday 19 April.

For five hours today, the Court of Appeal sitting in Iyaganku Area of Ibadan took the arguments of counsel.

The application filed by Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) on behalf of PDP sought for three orders based on the record of the Federal High Court, Adeoyo, Ibadan transmitted to the appellant court for the purpose of the appeal against the vacation of the order restraining Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from enlisting Akala as the governorship candidate of PDP.

The orders sought for are:

An order amending the record of proceedings already before the court by addition of the submission of various counsel in the case on 14 day of February, 2011.

An order granting leave to the 2nd respondent/Applicant to use document marked Exhibits B and C as forming part of the proceedings of the Federal High Court, Ibadan on 14th February, 2011 in suit no. FHC/IB/2/2011.

An order deeming exhibit B and C which is the proceedings of the Federal High Court on 14th February, 2011 in suit no. FHC/IB/2/2011 as part of the bundle of documents to be used as the record of appeal.

The application which was supported with 26 paragraph affidavit and six exhibits challenged the record of the proceedings of the trial court as Fagbemi argued that the record did not reflect in full what transpired in the lower court.

Fagbemi argued that the record of the lower court transmitted to the appeal court is incomplete because most of the things he said in the court were not recorded by Justice Jonathan Sharkarho, stressing that all that transpired on February 14 2011 did not show in the record of the lower court.

According to him, the interim injunction sought at the lower court was omitted in the record of the lower court, arguing that the presiding judge at the lower court erred to have recorded only what he felt should be recorded.

He said, “I submit that we have proven that certain things transpired that day in the court that the court below did not put down. The record is not complete. Some things contained in our exhibits were not in the record of the lower court”.

Fagbemi then concluded that the appellant court should admit exhibits B. and C attached to his application as supplementary court record.

Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN) totally agreed with Fagbemi telling the court that he completely supported Chief Fagbemi.

Responding, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN), counsel to the appellant applicant who pointed out that he was not responding to the arguments canvassed by Akinjide because Akinjide had no application before the court disclosed that his response is for the arguments of Fagbemi.

Akeredolu who urged  the court to jettison the position of Fagbemi said that Fagbemi has not justified a good ground for the admissibility of exhibit B and C.

Akeredolu pointed out to the court that contrary to Fagbemi’s argument, all that transpired in the court cannot be in the record of the court, stressing that all that happened in the court can only form part of the record of the court.
“If we laugh, will it reflect in the record of the court? No. The court will only record relevant things not irrelevant one”, he said.

He said that if counsel feel that what he is saying must be part of the record of the court, he will insist that he should be written  down, adding that the record of the court is complete.

Akeredolu said that the court could only record what it feels that is relevant noting that the 3rd respondent was not recorded at the lower court because he has been disengaged from the suit.

He said, “The record of court forwarded to the appeal court is presumed to be correct until proven otherwise and it has not be proven otherwise”.

Earlier before the arguments of the counsel on the application, there was drama as Fagbemi opposed  the court taking his application with the appellant’s application bordering on departure fro the rule of the court.

After arguing for and against whether the court should hear the two applications together, the court decided to reserve its ruling till next week but Akeredolu vehemently opposed it.

Based on that, Akeredolu withdrew his oral application that the two applications be taken together saying, “I am withdrawing my application so that we can move forward. I can’t wait till next week again. Let them argue their application and I will argue my own”.

Justice Alagoa dismissed the application as requested  by Fagbemi.

By Gbenro Adesina/Ibadan