The Rationale and Jurisprudence Of Judgment Review at the Supreme Court Of Nigeria

Contributor: Tobenna Daniel Mogbo

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Nigeria sits at the apex of the Nigerian judicial hierarchy. By virtue of section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), its decisions are final and cannot be appealed to any other body or person.^[1] Oputa JSC famously captured this principle of finality in Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya: ‘We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible only because we are final.’^[2]

However, the demands of justice may, in exceptional circumstances, require a limited qualification of this principle. Although the Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal over its own decisions, it retains an inherent but strictly limited power to review or set aside its judgments in recognised circumstances. This article examines the rationale, legal grounds, and procedural framework governing the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s review of judgments, with reference to the Constitution and relevant judicial authorities.

The Rationale for Review: Finality vs Justice

The finality of Supreme Court judgments rests principally on the doctrine of res judicata and the public policy maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium—it is in the interest of the State that litigation must come to an end. Without finality, litigation could continue indefinitely, burdening the courts, undermining certainty in the administration of justice, and depriving successful litigants of the benefit of concluded proceedings.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court recognises that, as a human institution, it may make errors. Its limited power of review therefore safeguards against exceptional circumstances in which strict adherence to finality would perpetuate a nullity or prevent the correction of an accidental error. In SPDCN Ltd v Agbara, the Supreme Court reiterated that, although it lacks jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own judgment, it retains inherent power to set aside a judgment that is a nullity and to correct accidental slips or errors.^[3]

The rationale for this limited jurisdiction is therefore twofold:

• Preservation of Judicial Integrity: To ensure that the authority of the Court is not invoked to sustain a judgment that is legally a nullity and that its records accurately reflect the decision properly reached.^[4]
• Correction of Accidental or Clerical Errors: To ensure that clerical, administrative, or mechanical errors in the expression of a judgment do not distort the Court’s actual decision.

Legal Grounds for Review

The Supreme Court does not possess a general power to review its judgments. An application for review cannot serve as a second opportunity to reargue an appeal or as a disguised appeal against the Court’s own decision. The circumstances in which the Court may revisit a judgment are narrow and strictly circumscribed. Order 20 rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 expressly permits the Court to correct clerical mistakes, accidental slips or omissions, or to vary a judgment or order to give effect to its meaning or intention.^[5] Beyond the slip rule, the Court has also recognised exceptional circumstances in which it may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment, including where the judgment was obtained by fraud, is a nullity, was delivered without jurisdiction, resulted from a mistaken belief that the parties had consented to it, or arose from a procedure that deprived it of the character of a legitimate adjudication.^[6]

1. The Slips Rule

Under Order 20 rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024, the Court may correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and may vary a judgment or order to give effect to its true meaning or intention. The rule does not permit the Court to alter the substance of a decision that correctly reflects what it decided or to substitute a different substantive decision.^[7]

1. Judgment Obtained by Fraud or Deceit

The Supreme Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud or deceit, whether perpetrated on the Court or by one or more of the parties. A judgment procured through fraud cannot acquire immunity merely because the final Court delivered it.^[8]

1. Nullity or Absence of Jurisdiction

The Court may set aside its judgment where the judgment is a nullity, including where the Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter. A person affected by an order that is a nullity is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside. This principle also applies where a fundamental defect in the Court’s constitution or competence renders the proceedings void.^[9]

1. Judgment Given under a Mistaken Belief as to Consent

The Court may also set aside a judgment where it was misled into giving the judgment under the mistaken belief that the parties had consented to it. In such circumstances, the judgment does not represent a genuine judicial determination founded on the actual position of the parties and may therefore be set aside in the exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.^[10]

1. Denial of Fair Hearing or Other Fundamental Procedural Defect

Section 36 of the Constitution guarantees the right to fair hearing.^[11] Where the procedure adopted in reaching a judgment deprives the proceedings of the character of a legitimate adjudication, the Supreme Court may set aside the resulting judgment. This includes circumstances in which a party entitled to be heard was denied that opportunity in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. In FBN Plc v TSA Industries Ltd, the Supreme Court affirmed that proceedings conducted without the requisite opportunity to be heard may amount to a nullity.^[12]

Procedural Framework

The procedure for seeking the correction, variation, or setting aside of a Supreme Court judgment derives principally from the Supreme Court Rules 2024, supplemented, where appropriate, by the Court’s inherent powers recognised under section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution. However, section 6(6)(a) does not confer a general jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to review its final judgments on the merits. Its inherent powers must be exercised consistently with the constitutional finality of the Court’s decisions and the limited circumstances recognised by law.^[13]

• Form of Application: An application to the Supreme Court must be brought by motion on notice, stating the rule under which it is brought and the grounds upon which the reliefs are sought. It must be supported by an affidavit setting out the material facts relied upon.^[14]
• Written Address: The application must include a written address setting out the applicant’s legal arguments. Under the Supreme Court Rules 2024, the applicant’s written address must not exceed ten pages. A respondent has fourteen days from service to file a response, while the applicant may file a reply within seven days of being served with the respondent’s processes.^[15]
• Time for Bringing the Application: Order 20 rule 4 does not prescribe a specific limitation period within which an application to correct an accidental slip or omission must be filed. Nevertheless, an applicant should approach the Court promptly, particularly where the relief sought invokes the Court’s discretionary or inherent jurisdiction.

The Rules do not prescribe that an application for correction or review must be heard by the same panel that delivered the original judgment. The constitution of the panel therefore does not constitute a substantive ground of review in itself.

Judicial Discretion and Limitations

A. Prohibition against Re-argument

The Supreme Court will not entertain an application that merely seeks to reargue the merits of a concluded appeal. This limitation was recently reaffirmed in Jokolo v Governor of Kebbi State, where the applicant sought to set aside the Court’s earlier judgment and have the appeal reheard by a fresh panel. The Court held that the complaints were directed at the substance of its earlier decision rather than at a clerical mistake, accidental omission, or other recognised basis for setting aside the judgment. It consequently dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, abusive, and procedurally incompetent.^[16]

The Court also ordered S M Danyaro, counsel for the applicant, personally to pay ₦50 million in costs to the respondents within ninety days and directed that, upon failure to comply, he would lose his right of audience before Nigerian courts until compliance.^[17] The decision underscores the Court’s unwillingness to permit the review jurisdiction to operate as a disguised appeal against its own final judgment.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court cannot review its judgment merely because the decision is alleged to be wrong on the merits. To permit otherwise would effectively require the Court to sit on appeal over itself, contrary to section 235 of the Constitution.

B. Finality in Election Matters

The principle of finality assumes particular significance in election matters, which are sui generis and governed by strict constitutional timelines. The Supreme Court has rejected attempts to use an application for review as a means of reopening the merits of an election dispute after it has delivered its final judgment. In the application arising from Uzodinma v Ihedioha, the Court declined, by a majority decision, to reverse its earlier judgment concerning the 2019 Imo State governorship election, holding that the application effectively invited the Court to sit on appeal over its own final decision.^[18]

The exceptional jurisdiction to correct or set aside a judgment cannot therefore be used to circumvent the constitutional finality of election litigation or to create an additional appellate stage after the Supreme Court has finally determined the dispute.

C. Public Policy and the Finality of Litigation

The restrictive approach to review also serves an important public policy objective. The administration of justice requires certainty and an eventual end to litigation. If every dissatisfied litigant could reopen a final Supreme Court judgment by recasting arguments already considered as grounds for review, the distinction between an appeal and an exceptional application to correct or set aside a judgment would disappear.

The Court must therefore balance its limited jurisdiction to prevent a genuine nullity or correct an accidental error against the equally important need to preserve the authority and finality of its judgments. Review remains an exceptional jurisdiction and not an additional tier of appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s power to revisit its own judgments is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly. It does not provide dissatisfied litigants with another opportunity to challenge a decision on its merits. Rather, it permits the Court, within strictly defined limits, to correct accidental slips or omissions and to set aside judgments affected by recognised defects such as nullity, fraud, want of jurisdiction, or a fundamental procedural irregularity.

The jurisprudence therefore reflects a careful balance between two competing imperatives: the finality necessary for certainty in the administration of justice and the need to preserve the integrity of judicial decisions. As the final court of the land, the Supreme Court cannot routinely reopen concluded disputes without undermining the constitutional finality of its judgments. Its review jurisdiction consequently remains a narrow exception, available only where the circumstances fall within the limited grounds recognised by law.

Reference:

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 235 ↑
2. (1989) 13 NWLR (Pt.109) 250 ↑
3. (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1775) 356 ↑
4. ODOFIN V. OLABANJI (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt 435) 126 ↑
5. Supreme Court Rules 2024, O 20 r 4 ↑
6. GTB Plc v Innoson (Nig) Ltd (2022) 6 NWLR (Pt 1825) 35 ↑
7. Supreme Court Rules 2024, O 20 r 4. ↑
8. GTB Plc v Innoson (Nig) Ltd (2022) 6 NWLR (Pt 1825) 35. ↑
9. Dingyadi v INEC (No 2) (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1224) 154 ↑
10. ibid. ↑
11. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 36. ↑
12. FBN Plc v TSA Industries Ltd (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt 1216) 247. ↑
13. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 6(6)(a), 235; Adigun v Attorney-General of Oyo State (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt 56) 197. ↑
14. Supreme Court Rules 2024, O 4 r 1. ↑
15. ibid, O 4 rr 1–4. ↑
16. Jokolo v Governor of Kebbi State SC/266/2017 (SC, 15 May 2026). ↑
17. Ibid. ↑
18. Uzodinma v Ihedioha SC 1462/2019 (SC, 3 March 2020) (application for review). ↑