1. Appeal Court only do a review of tribunal judgement, and no more hearing of cases – Muhammad Ohize
2. Sadly, on appeal, you are not to introduce new evidence. So, even if they later found any, its useless – AL Mustapha
3. In your quest to give yourself hope at the Court of Appeal, stop comparing the case of Oyetola and Adeleke with the Natasha’s case and the judgments given by the courts therein.
The subject matters of the two cases are different, the “Ratio Decidendi” are distinctive and entirely different, ask questions, meet a lawyer and ask for clarification and stop making clueless analysis.
I know you will ask me what “Ratio Decidendi” means, it’s a latin phrase and it means “the rationale for the decision.” The term refers to a key factual point or chain of reasoning in a case that drives the final judgment.
The subject matter and the Ratio Decidendi in the Oyetola vs Adeleke’s case was Mr Oyetola’s allegation of certificate forgery levelled against Mr Adeleke, the Supreme Court held that Mr Oyetola and APC did not substantiate their claims. “No evidence was adduced to prove the case of forgery against Adeleke, hence the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Adeleke of the People’s Democratic Party.
In the Natasha’s case, the subject matter bothers on inflation of result by Engr. Abubakar Ohere and the tribunal held that “Natasha’s results in the nine polling units of Ajaokuta LGA were 1073, against the 77 recorded by the Ward Collation officers, while those of the APC candidate, Abubakar Ohere, were inflated to 1553, against the actual figure of 1031.
The tribunal further ruled that they were also convinced that the petitioner’s (Natasha) 996 votes in polling units 009, 046, and 049 polling units of Ganaja village of Ajaokuta LGA were deliberately not recorded at the Ward Collation Centre amongst others.
All the above facts were duly established and proven before the Tribunal.
– Ozodel Africaa wrote from Okene.
