CORAM

---

Musa Dattijo Muhammad Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Lawal GarbaJ ustice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani AbubakarJustice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

1. H.R.M OBA SAMUEL ADEBAYO ADEGBOLA (ELERUWA)

2. CHIEF JACOB SALAKO ADEWUSI (THE ODOFIN ERUWA) (DECEASED)

3. CHIEF FEMI ATANDA – JAGUN OF ERUWA

4. CHIEF I. 0. OLABODE – OLUKOTUN OF ERUWA

5. CHIEF IDOWU OKEOWO – ASIPA OF ERUWA

6. CHIEF E. OJEBISI – BAALE AGBE OF ERUWA

7. MR. KASALI SANGOTIKUN

APPELLANTS 

---

1. MR. JAMES OLATUNDE IDOWU (for himself and on behalf of Laribikusi Ruling House excepting Lasubu family or Section of Laribikusi Ruling House/Quarters)

2. ALHAJI RASHEED OYEDEPO AJAO

3. THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE

4. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OYO STATE

5. IBARAPA EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, JUDICIAL REVIEW, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case involves an application to review and set aside a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on November 29, 2019. The Supreme Court had previously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/1/128/2011, which in turn had affirmed the final judgment of the High Court of Oyo State delivered in Suit No. HER/8/98, dismissing the appeal of the applicants.

On December 27, 2019, the applicants, whose appeals to both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were dismissed, filed a motion on notice seeking to review and set aside the Supreme Court judgment, and requesting an order allowing their appeal. The applicants contended that the originating process (statement of claim) was signed by legal practitioners not known to law, which allegedly rendered the entire proceedings a nullity. They argued that this jurisdictional issue was not considered in the previous judgment.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The application was refused.

2. The Supreme Court held that it has no jurisdiction to rehear or hear de novo an appeal it had already heard and determined.

3. The Court held that the alleged lack of jurisdiction arising from irregularity in the signing of the initial statement of claim (which was subsequently amended without objection) was not the type that makes the judgment of the Supreme Court reviewable.

4. The Court questioned whether, in view of the unconditional and absolute finality given to judgments of the Supreme Court by Section 235 of the 1999 Constitution, any determination or judgment of the Court can be reviewed at all.

5. The Court ordered the applicants to pay costs of N2 million to the respondents.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Supreme Court can rehear or hear de novo an appeal it had already heard and determined under the guise of a review application?

2. Whether the alleged defect in the signing of the initial statement of claim, which was subsequently amended, constitutes the type of jurisdictional defect that would warrant the Supreme Court to review its final judgment?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FINALITY OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS – LIMITS ON COURT’S POWER TO REVIEW ITS DECISIONS

---

The application is presented as one for the review of this Court’s judgment delivered on 29-12-2019. But the entire tenor of the application show that it is an application to rehear or hear de novo the appeal on a fresh ground and not to review anything already decided in the judgement of 29-12-2019. This Court has no jurisdiction to re-hear or hear denovo an appeal it had already heard and determined. On the basis of existing case law, it can only review what it has already determined in the appeal before it. A party cannot under the guise of asking this Court to review its judgment in an appeal it had heard and determined, seek a re-hearing of the appeal on a new or fresh ground. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

PUBLIC INTEREST IN FINALITY OF LITIGATION – IMPORTANCE OF ENDING LITIGATION

---

It is in the public interest that litigation of a dispute should not continue ad infinitum. The law must be able to prescribe a stopping point, beyond which litigation cannot continue. This is to protect the rule of law, the power and authority of Courts, the orderly administration of law and justice, public confidence in the judicial processes, and the peaceful resolution of disputes by the due process of law. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

INHERENT POWER OF SUPREME COURT – LIMITATION ON REHEARING APPEALS

---

The inherent power of this Court to set aside its judgment in appropriate or deserving cases cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction as though the matter before it is another appeal intended to afford the litigants yet another opportunity to re-state or reargue their appeal. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C. (citing Jev v. Iyortyom (2015) ALL FWLR (pt) 837) 760)

 

---

RAISING NEW ISSUES AFTER FINAL DETERMINATION – PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY

---

The applicants who had the opportunity right from the moment they were served with the statement of claim at the trial Court, before they took any further steps in the proceedings, to challenge the validity of the statement of claim on the ground that it was not properly signed or that the person who signed did not state his personal name below the signature at the foot of the statement of claim, did not challenge the validity of the said statement of claim throughout the trial proceedings in the trial Court, in the appeal before the Court of Appeal and in the further appeal to this Court till the conclusion of the appeal. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

DISTINCTION BETWEEN TYPES OF JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS – CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

---

I do not think that this case law rule intends that it is every nullity or lack of jurisdiction that should qualify a judgment or determination of this Court for review by this Court. To apply this caselaw rule in this manner would make most judgments of this Court reviewable leading to endless litigation and defeat of the provisions of S.235 of the Constitution.– Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS – INHERENT VS. PROCEDURAL

---

An approach that would avoid this result is to limit the kind of nullity or lack of jurisdiction that can qualify the judgment of this Court for review by it to the nullity or lack of jurisdiction that is inherent in the nature of the case or the Court seized of it ab initio. Example of such lack of jurisdiction and nullity include lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of territorial jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction over a person. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

PROCEDURAL DEFECTS VS. INHERENT JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS

---

In our present case, the alleged lack of jurisdiction arose from an irregular process or procedure to which the signing of a statement of a claim without stating the name of the signatory or a statement of claim signed by a person not identified as a legal practitioner, which statement of claim was responded to by a statement of defence, was amended and replaced by an amended properly signed copy without objection by the applicants. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

DOUBTS ABOUT SUPREME COURT’S REVIEW POWERS – CONSTITUTIONAL FINALITY

---

Let me observe that in view of the unconditional and absolute finality given to the judgment of this Court by S.235 of the 1999 Constitution, it is doubtful that any determination or judgment of this Court can be reviewed at all for any reason. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

CONFLICT BETWEEN CASE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

---

It is obvious that the case law from a plethora of the judgments of this Court that this Court can review its judgment in the exceptional situations listed in Jev v. Iyortyom (supra) and other cases is in conflict with S.235 of the Constitution. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

INHERENT POWERS OF COURTS – LIMITS AND STATUTORY BASIS

---

The notion that it is derived from the inherent power vested in the Supreme Court by S. 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution is not supported by the clear provisions of S.235 of the same Constitution and the case law established by a long line of our decisions in Adeyemi & Ors v. Oyo State & Ors (1984), LPELR – 169 (SC)… that the inherent jurisdiction of a Court cannot be exercised outside the jurisdiction expressly conferred on it by the Constitution or statute and that no Court has inherent appellate jurisdiction, that inherent jurisdiction follows and support jurisdiction conferred by Constitution. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

ORDER 8 RULE 16 OF SUPREME COURT RULES – SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

---

It is clear from the words of Order 8 Rule 16 that it allows only applications to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission or to vary the judgment or order so as to make it correctly represent what the Court decided and give effect to its true meaning or intention. In this case, the application is not asking the Court to order any of the reliefs that can be applied for under Rule 16 of Order 8. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUPREME COURT RULES – NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

---

Considering the unconditional and absolute finality S.235 gives the judgment of this Court, it is doubtful if Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 as amended is consistent with S.235 of the 1999 Constitution which does not appear to accommodate any form of revisit of any determination or judgment of this Court.– Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – BALANCE BETWEEN FINALITY AND JUSTICE

---

There is a glaring need for an amendment of S.235 of the Constitution to include a proviso that would enable this Court to be able to review its judgment or any determination in the terms of the case law established by its decisions in many cases and enable it grant the orders listed in Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rule as amended in deserving cases to clear the doubt about the constitutionality of the existing case law in the interest of substantial justice and the public interest. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Section 235, Section 6(6)(a)

2. Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended in 1999), Order 8 Rule 16

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT