CORAM

---

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Lead Judgment)

CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, JSC, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

---

PARTIES

---

NIGERIAN ARMY. APPELLANTS

---

MAJOR JACOB IYELA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent was charged before the court martial which found him guilty and sentenced him. The court martial subsequently reviewed the sentence to dismissal from the Nigerian Army instead of compulsory retirement earlier ordered. The respondent’s appeal to the court of appeal was allowed.

---

HELD

---

The court held that the trial Court Martial had no power to revisit its earlier judgment and dismissed the appeal.

---

ISSUES

---

1. upon a proper construction of Section 237 of Decree 105 of 1993 the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Respondent is exempted from the provision of Section 9(1) of the Firearms Act Cap 146 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990?

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong in holding that the trial General Court Martial was functus officio after it delivered the judgment of 28th July 1998 and as such could not award the sentences it awarded on the 4th August 1998?

3. Whether having regard to Section 114(3) and other relevant provisions of Decree 105, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that there was no provision of law enabling the trial General Court Martial to sentence the Respondent to a reduction in rank and dismissal?

4. Whether in view of the provision of Section 9(1) of the Firearms Act Cap 146 L.F.N. 1990 the prosecution needed to prove that the Respondent intended to use the ammunition in his possession for an illegal purpose in order to secure the Respondent’s conviction.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF A COURT MARTIAL TO REVIEW JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 150 OF THE ARMED FORCES ACT

---

The Court Martial has authority to reassemble and review the sentence or sentences if it had been so directed by the confirming authority by virtue of the provisions of Section 150 of the Armed Forces Act… even if a direction to review its sentences (which was not) is given, it had strict limitations in terms of the scope of punishments that could be awarded. It had no authority to award or substitute a punishment which is more severe than that contained in the original sentence – Tabai J.S.C

---

COURTS HAVE NO POWER TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS

---

Once a court or tribunal delivered its final judgment in a case before it, it became funtus officio with respect to that case. It has no power to reopen the case for the purpose of making corrections or changing any opinion expressed in its earlier judgment in the case. The only exception to this rule is where there is need to make minor permissible correction under the slip rule. What can be altered under the slip rule is not as to the substance of the judgment earlier delivered but limited to minor errors, such as spelling errors, typographical or mathematical errors wherein correct figures can be entered- Akintan J.S.C.

---

WHETHER A COURT MARTIAL CAN REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENT

---

Although the fact that the judgments passed by the General Court Marshal are subject to confirmation by an appropriate confirming authority, that provision does not confer on the GCM the right to recall any judgment it had delivered for the purpose of reviewing same- Akintan J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Berliet Nig Ltd. v. Kachalla (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 420) 478;2. Emodi v. Kwentoh. (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 433) 656; 3. Minister of Lagos Affairs, Mines & Power v. Akin Olugbade (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 226; 4. Commissioner of Lands Midwest State v. Edo-Osagie (1973) 6 SC 155; 5. Umunna v. Okwurajiwe (1978) 6 & 7 SC 1 at 9.

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

The Armed Forces Act

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT