LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Right of Appeal — Interpretation of Finality Provisions — Substance Over Form
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In interpreting finality provisions, the first issue is the substance, not the form, of the proceeding; if the substance is an election petition, the finality provision applies and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Onuaguluchi v. Ndu & Anor (2001) NLC-1082000(SC) at p. 18; Paras A–C.
"In the interpretation of the above provisions, the first issue to be considered is the substance and not the form of the proceeding leading to this appeal. Is the substance in respect of an election petition? If the answer is in the affirmative, any complaint against the decision of the Court of Appeal arising in respect of the said election petition cannot confer on the appellant the right of appeal to this court by virtue of section 81(3) of Decree No.5 of 1999. That provision is clear and unambiguous. It means what it says. To confer on the appellant the right of appeal in this case would defeat the whole object and purport of Decree No.5 of 1999."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When interpreting finality provisions in election matters, the court examines the substance, not the form, of the proceeding. If the substance is an election petition, the finality provision applies. The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction. The appellant cannot avoid finality by characterising the proceeding differently. The provision means what it says. Giving an appeal would defeat the purpose of the provision. The principle prevents clever drafting from circumventing constitutional ouster of jurisdiction. The court looks at the real issues in dispute. If they arise from an election, the decision is final. The rule applies strictly to election matters.
