ACTION ALLIANCE v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS.

ACTION ALLIANCE v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS.

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 14th day of February, 2012
Suit No: SC.23/2012

Before Their Lordships

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN    ……. Justice of the Supreme Court
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    ……. Justice of the Supreme Court
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE    ……. Justice of the Supreme Court
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA    ……. Justice of the Supreme Court
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI    ……. Justice of the Supreme Court

Between
ACTION ALLIANCE    Appellants

And
1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
2. SENATOR ISIAKA ABIOLA AJIMOBI
3. ACCORD PARTY
4. ACTION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA
5. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY    Respondents

COUNSEL:

B. Lawal Esq. with him A. Adeyemo Esq.    For the Appelants

Ahmed Raji Esq for the 1st respondent with him Adeola Adedipo Esq, Z. Garuba; O. Omo-Eghareyba Esq.
Chief Akin Olusinmo SAN for the 2nd and 4th respondents with Michael Lana Esq.
Chief O. Oke for the 5th respondent with him are Chief A. O. Ajana, J. O. Mafo Etq; W. A. Olajide; S. C Ikuesan,; O. Aiyemo; M. Kilani (Miss).
W. A Olajide Esq for the 6th respondent Aham Eke-Ejelam Esq for the appellant with B. O. B Udeire, Esq.
No appearance for the 3rd respondent though sent hearing notice on 10th February, 2012 and there is proof of service.    For the Respondents

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, J.S.C (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The petition giving rise to this appeal was filed on 17th May, 2011 and by the provision of Section 285(6) of 1999 Constitution an election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within one hundred and eight (180) days from the date of the filing of the petition.

The relief sought by the appellant includes an order that the petition be returned to the tribunal to be heard de novo by another panel. As at today, the one hundred and eighty (180) days has long lapsed and by the decisions of this court the time stipulated in the constitution cannot be extended, which an order of retrial would tend to effect.

In the circumstance the appeal is misconceived as same is an exercise in futility and is consequently dismissed.

I make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.