The recent argument on the lips of a sizeable number of Nigerians, especially the political parties and their members, is:

“Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria can validly review its recent decision on the Imo State governorship election petition”

Largely, people from the legal parlance have opinions that despite the unpleasant nature of the decision, the Supreme Court of Nigeria is functus officio and does not have the requisite power to review its earlier decision.

To non-Lawyers, they subscribed that the assertion is a mere fairy tale. After all, the Supreme Court is a court of public policy and its recent decision is unwelcome hence, a need for review.

Consequent upon the stance of this class of well-meaning citizens, we attempt to access their arguments through the eyes of law and proffer a workable step in the end.

To set the record straight, it is important to bring forth the clear cut definition of the term ‘judgement’ in the legal parlance. It means:

“An official and authentic decision of a court of law upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit which were litigated and submitted for the court’s determination; it also means the binding, authentic, official, judicial determination of the court in respect of the claim and action or suit before it. OGBORU V. UDUAGHAN (2012) 11 NWLR (pt. 1311) p. 357.

A careful study of the definition would reveal that certain essential features such as bindingness, authenticity and official are the sense organs of a judgement. This means that a judgement of court  possess the force of bindingness and it is indeed binding on the parties and the court, it is authentic and stands as an official pronouncement of the court. Evidently, this is the position maintained by the parties adverse to the review.

The law is truly trite that a court is Functus officio once it has given a final decision and necessary consequential orders in a matter presented to it for adjudication. It was held that:

“Court becomes functus officio and is precluded from reviewing the form of the judgement or order apart from the correction of the typographical or accidental slips under the slip rule.

Once pronounced, the court cannot substitute a different decision in place of the one which has been recorded”

These decision where handed down in the cases of Nwankwo vs. Customary Court Ndiawa, Arondizuogu & ors (2009) LPELR-4589(CA), (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 531) 1516; Nigeria Army  vs. Iyela (2008)18 NWLR (1118)115.

For the benefit of all, Functus officio means “task performed” without further function. A court is therefore not bestowed with jurisdiction to review or reopen, its own decisions reached on the merits outside the circumstances laid down by the law. The court blessed this in Ibrahim v. Gwandu (2015) 5 NWLR (pt. 1451) p. 1 and also Adigun v. A. G Oyo State (1987)1 NWLR (pt. 53)678

A community reading of the authorities in the cases of Nwankwo vs. Customary Court Ndiawa, Arondizuogu & ors (supra) and Skymit Motors Ltd. V. U. B. A. Plc. (2012)10 NWLR (pt. 1309)491 would reveal the powers granted to the court to review its own judgement and the limitations thereto. These powers are certainly granted to only few causes of action that may accrue therefrom. The obvious one is to correct error arising from slip or accidental omission. It held thus;

“the court has power to at any time correct an error in a judgement or order arising from a slip or accidental omission whether there is or is not a general order to that effect. The power of the court to amend or correct its records on accidental slip is always inherent in the jurisdiction of the court if it is brought to the attention of the judge”

The innocent question that would certainly beg for an answer is;  was there truly an error arising from slip or accidental omission in the recent decision of the supreme court of Nigeria in the Imo State governorship election petition that would call for a review?

This question would be more conveniently answered by the both parties, especially the ones calling for the review. If the answer is in the negative, we sympathize with them and hope something better comes their way soon. We therefore move to adopt the judgement in totality.

On the other hand, if they insist that their ground does not touch the lines of error arising from slip or accidental omission as outlined in the above decisions, we would not be quick to crucify them at law. We would perhaps afford them opportunity to be heard, more so that it is their constitutional guaranteed right. But under what authority would they approach the court for the same review? Perhaps the authority of Ibrahim v. Gwandu (supra) where the court held;

“A court is therefore not bestowed with jurisdiction to review or reopen, its own decisions reached on the merits outside the circumstances laid down by the law”

The condition referred to in Ibrahim’s case has been identified in Mallam S. B. Salami vs. Alhaji Abdul -Rahamman S.  Ajadi (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 638) 861. This decision provided further exception to the earlier exceptions on what is required before a court could review its judgement contrary to the decisions in Nwankwo vs. Customary Court Ndiawa, Arondizuogu & ors (supra) and Skymit Motors Ltd. V. U. B. A. Plc. (supra) where the court was emphatic that;

“Once a judgement has been entered, the court cannot alter its decision except to correct minor errors whether of spelling or typographical or in the form of mathematical error wherein correct figures can be entered” Skymit Motors Ltd. V. U. B. A. Plc. (supra)

Thus, the court in Mallam S. B. Salami vs. Alhaji Abdul -Rahamman S.  Ajadi (supra), held on the propriety of court reviewing its judgement and exception thereto;

“No court has power to hear, review, alter or vary any judgement or order it has entered or drawn up. This rule is subject to certain qualifications. There is power under the rules of court, and inherent in the judge to correct any mistake, or error arising from any slip or omission, so as to do substantial justice or give effect to its meaning and intention. That is to say the court ceases to have jurisdictional power over it’s own decision. A Court can set aside it’s judgement in the followings

  1. When the judgement is obtained by fraud or deceit of any of the parties or of one or more of the parties;
  2. When the judgement is a nullity,
  3. When it is obvious that the court was misled into given judgement under a mistake belief that the parties consented to it;
  4. That the judgement was given in the absence of jurisdiction; and
  5. Where the procedure was such as to deprive the decision or judgement of legitimate adjudication”

I’m comforted that Mallam S. B. Salami’s case housed many conditions which could serve as a pointer to the proposition of the review at law.

If the proposition vexed is not an error arising from the slip or accidental ommision but any of the five (5) mentioned conditions, few or all, we submit on the authority of Mallam S. B. Salami vs. Alhaji Abdul -Rahaman S.  Ajadi (supra), that the proposition can validly approach the Supreme Court to seek the court review its earlier judgement. It is their further duty to establish and proof their case as the law require.

I’m fortified with the authority of Oladosu v. Olaojoyetan (2012)1 NWLR (pt. 1335) p. 285 where the court posit that;

“A review of a judgement obtained by fraud is possible. The way to do it is to file a fresh suit with the objective of establishing the fraud. The pleading shall deal with nothing other than facts relating to the fraud. Evidence will then be led to establish the fraud in the trial. The plaintiff must not raise any of the issues originally tried”

We so submit.