It is totally false that my appeal to the Supreme Court has lapsed because of my failure to fulfil a condition precedent.
My case is still pending at the Supreme Court. My appeal was filed on 3 March 2021 within the prescribed period but the court’s registry has been unable to transmit records from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court by reasons of the ongoing JUSUN’s strike.
I reasonably believe the appeal will be heard and one of the main legal issues to be considered will be the extent of the mandatory effect of Section 285 (12) that provides that “an appeal from a decision of a court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal.”
In Peoples‟ Democratic Party (PDP) v Congress for Democratic Change (CPC) & 41Ors, the Supreme Court held:
“the sixty (60) days allotted in section 285 (7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended includes Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays as well as court vacations because if it was the intention of the framers of the constitution to exclude these days, they would have so stated in clear and unambiguous terms…”
However, my case is distinguishable from all the previous cases before the Supreme Court. I am not seeking for a departure from the extant position of the Supreme Court that “the sixty (60) days allotted in section 285 (7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended includes Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays as well as court vacations…”
My case is distinguishable in that it concerns unforeseen events that prevented the courts from sitting or made the courts inaccessible and should be an exception to the existing authorities having regards to its particular and exceptional circumstances.
Further, the JUSUN’s strike action has impacted many cases with limitation periods prescribed by the Constitution. it is, therefore, not in the interest of justice and against the public interest for legal proceedings to lapse by reason of inaccessibility to the courts as a result of strike action.
Most importantly, it would be most unjust for the court to penalise litigants because of the consequences of the action of the court itself.
Fingers crossed!
Source : Nat Adojutelegan fb page
