.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT

John Kadiya v. Solomon Daushep Lar & Ors (1983) - SC


place advert here


icon CASE SUMMARY OF:

John Kadiya v. Solomon Daushep Lar & Ors (1983) - SC

by NSA PaulPipAr
icon TAG(S)


icon PARTIES

APPELLANT
John Kadiya

v.

RESPONDENTS
1. Solomon Daushep Lar;
2. Chief Federal Electoral Officer for Plateau State - Alhaji Garba L. Umaru;
3. The Returning Officer - Alhaji Shettima Gana
icon CITATION


icon COURT

Supreme Court
icon LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

Sowemimo, C.J.N.
icon APPEARANCES

* FOR THE APPELLANT
- Mr. Sofola S.A.N.

* FOR THE RESPONDENT
- G.O.K. Ajayi;
Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire


icon FACT (as relating to the issues)

The appellant who was the unsuccessful N.P.N. sponsored candidate at the Gubernatorial election held in Plateau State on the 13th day of August, 1983 filed his petition challenging the declaration that the 1st respondent, Solomon Daushep Lar was duly elected or returned.
He filed the petition on the 29th day of August, 1983. When on the 12th day of September, 1983 which was the 30th day after the said election, the matter came up for hearing before the election panel of the Plateau State High Court consisting of Obi Okoye, C.J., Emefo, J. and Soluade, J., the court struck out the petition on the ground that section 140(2) of the Electoral Act cannot be met (which is the time limit for the hearing of the appeal having expired).

The petitioner (Appellant) appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which appeal was dismissed; hence, a further appeal to this court.
icon ISSUE(S)

1. Whether the time limit set by the Electoral Act is constitutional?
icon HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

[APPEAL: ALLOWED]

1. ISSUE 1 WAS RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BUT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT.

RULING:
i. To the extent that the National Assembly had enacted a time limitation within which an election petition was to be disposed of in court, we held that the said provisions cited above were unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever as being ultra vires the powers of the National Assembly. While the competence of the National Assembly under section 73 of the Constitution to legislate on matters appertaining to elections is undoubted, such power does not and cannot extend to include a power to impose a time limitation within which a court of law established under the Constitution must conclude the hearing of a case.
icon REFERENCED

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979;
icon SOME PROVISION(S)

Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 1982 provides as follows: "A petition filed before the High Court in respect of any election shall be disposed of by the court not later than 30 days from the date of such election and any petition not so disposed of shall be time barred and such petition shall be deemed null and void."

Section 129(3) of the Electoral Act 1982 provides as follows: "Proceedings before a High Court in the case of a petition in respect of the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor, or in respect of any of the Legislative Houses shall be completed not later than 30 days from the date of the election concerned."
icon RELEVANT CASE(S)


The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


icon CASE(S) RELATED

Unongo v. Aper Aku & Ors. (1983);
icon NOTABLE DICTA

* PROCEDURAL


* SUBSTANTIVE
The doctrine of separation of powers is the bulwark or anchor on which the survival of this nation as a nation must depend. While each arm of Government must need respect the other arm in the interest of the smooth running of governmental machinery, such respect must never degenerate to the level of one arm being allowed to usurp or impinge on the exclusive domain of the other as spelt out in the Constitution. - Irikefe, JSC. Kadiya v. Daushep (1983)
The end of this brief.


If this brief was aidful to you, LIKE Hbriefs on Facebook and FOLLOW Hbriefs on Twitter to get frequent Legal updates from Hbriefs.
kind_emoji


place advert here




USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio