ADMIRAL MURTALA NYAKO V. ADAMAWA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS
(2016) JELR 34207 (SC)
Supreme Court
•
SC.303/2016
•
16 Dec 2016
•
Nigeria
Coram
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JSC;
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC;
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI JSC;
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC;
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JSC;
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JSC;
AMIRU SANUSI JSC;
Appearances
Uche Nwokodi, SAN with him, S. I. Ameh (SAN), I. P. Dick, C. A Nwokodi and Lady D. N. Obodonkwu For Appellant
Mahmud Abubakar Magaji, SAN with him, Amina zukogi (Miss), Chris Kelechi Udeoyibo, Esq., M. M. Grema (Mrs.), U. M Medugu (Miss), Muzzammil Yahaya, Esq., Adekola I. Olawoye, Esq., Merilyn Chuku (Miss), and N. A. Bandawa, Esq. for 1st Respondent.Chief Chris Uche, SAN with him, Gordy Uche (SAN), Isaac Anumudu, Esq., James Odiba, Esq., Kanayo Okalor, Esq., Emmanuel Okorie, Esq., Isaac Nwachukwu, Esq., Chukwudi Maduka, Esq., Chukwudubem Chukwumerije, Esq., Olakunle Lawal, Esq., Moses Udoh, Esq., James Ebbi, Esq., Francis Nisisegbunan, Esq. and Chiamaka Agu (Miss) for the 2nd Respondent.O.M. Atoyebi, Esq. with him, Igbodo David, O.O. Aweda, Esq., U.O. Nsungwara (Miss), F.G. Akwuchi (Miss) and Monday Paul, Esq. for 3rd Respondent. For Respondent
Judgement
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant, Admiral Murtala Nyako, a retired naval officer, was elected the Governor of Adamawa State on the 5th of February 2012 to serve for a term of four years from the date he subscribed to the oath of the office. On the basis of its allegation of misconduct against the appellant, the 1st respondent following a resolution it passed, commenced the process of appellant's removal from the office of the Governor of Adamawa State he was elected to.
Aggrieved by 1st respondent's failure to follow the laid down procedure prescribed by the Constitution for the removal of a Governor, the appellant, by an originating motion filed on 13th November 2014, challenged his purported impeachment by the 1st respondent and sought for his reinstatement at the Federal High Court sitting at Yola, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court.
1st respondent not only challenged the competence of the originating motion by way of preliminary …
Cookie Policy