The Rivers State has administration petitioned the Supreme Court through its Attorney-General to get an order nullifying the Court of Appeal’s decision and to request that the Appeal be assigned to a new panel of judges.
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Haruna Tsammani was found to have erred in law when it relied on Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution and its inherent jurisdiction to order all parties to maintain the status quo in the VAT issue.
The Court of Appeal has been alleged to not have sufficient authority to send both parties back to where they were before the August 9, 2021 ruling of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, suit no. FHC/PH.CS149/2021, the court argued. In SHUGABA V. UNION BANK [1999],11 NWLR (pt. 627), page 459, the Supreme Court held that “no court has inherent jurisdiction (except in extreme circumstances) to set aside the exercise of discretion of another court concerning order made concerning an application for stay of execution.”
The court ruled that the appellate court panel failed to take this into account. When the Court of Appeal panel assumed jurisdiction to hear an oral request from counsel for the Financial Institutions Regulatory Service (FIRS) to maintain status-quo, even though FIRS had not met the prerequisite for invoking inherent jurisdiction of the appellate court, it was argued by the state that the panel erred in law.
When the appeal court “made a far-reaching judgment” on the oral plea of FIRS, Rivers State argued that it was denied a fair hearing. As a result, it asked the Supreme Court to approve the appeal, set aside the court of appeal’s ruling on maintaining the status quo and dismiss the FIRS’ oral application.