Eleazor Obioha V. Innocent Ibero & Anor (1994)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
BELGORE, J.S.C.
On 26th day of February, 1993 in the appeal No. S.C.91/1988, this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. It was a unanimous decision. I had the opportunity of agreeing with the lead judgment when I held inter alia as follows:
“The appeal in any case must be decided on the grounds of appeal filed and as enunciated in the Briefs of Argument in support. There is no ground of appeal challenging the cogent and important findings of trial Judge on the boundary between the contending parties which he unambiguously placed at the “elope” (moat) and the Court of Appeal ought not to have dwelt so deeply into this definite and conclusive finding of fact in the absence of anything perverse or unlawful or inadmissible in evidence leading to that finding.”
The respondent in that appeal, Eleazar Obioha, has now come with a motion on notice praying for orders:
(i) “directing a review of the judgment given in appeal S.C. 91/1988 aforementioned as delivered on 26th day of February, 1993, and
(ii) correcting some errors arising from accidental slip or omission in the judgment, to wit:- that the respondent in his appeal from the decision of the High Court to Court of Appeal filed only two grounds;
(iii) discharging the order restoring the judgment of the High Court arising from the error arising (sic) from the accidental slip or omission;
(iv) discharging the decisions of the Court in the Judgment of 23rd February 1993.
(a) that the District Officer in Exhibit K assessed the capacities in which the parties sued and were sued from personal capacities to representatives capacities;
and (b) that the District Officer in Exh. K had no authority to alter the capacities in which the parties sued and were sued from personal capacities to representative capacities;
(v) discharging the decision of the court in the judgment of 23/2/93 that there was no basis for the decision of District Officer in which Exh. K, the native court judgment upon the respondents plea of estoppel rested, to the effect that the native court action was fought or prosecuted in representative capacities;
(vi) ordering the rehearing of the appeal in this court or the rehearing of the appeal in the Court of Appeal or the retrial of the case itself.
The grounds upon which the application was made state as follows:
“1. The Court in its judgment of 23/2/93 made an accidental slip or omission whilst considering the point whether the appellants were entitled to judgment in that it took the erroneous view that the respondent filed only the two grounds of appeal in the respondents’ notice of appeal and inadvertently failed to take notice of the two additional grounds of appeal filed by the respondent in his appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court.
- Because of the accidental slip or omission alleged in (1) above the court took the erroneous view that the findings of fact, the trial Judge made against the respondent were unchallenged when in point of fact the two additional grounds challenged them specifically and vehemently.
- The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Divisional Officers Court in Exh. K upon which the respondent’s plea of res judicata was based.
- The constitutional role of the Supreme Court in respect of Exh. K, the judgment of the Divisional Officer’s Court lies only in the interpretation of the Judgment.
- The said decision of the Supreme Court on the correctness or otherwise of Exh. K are nullities by reason of lack of jurisdiction to make them.
- The decision of the Court of 23/2/93 is vitiated by reasons of grounds 1 – 5 above.”
This application was filed, curiously enough, with a brief of argument attached. The rules of this Court require no brief in this matter. Except in substantive appeal no brief of argument is required for any application except that for leave to appeal or for enlargement of time to appeal. The situations requiring brief of argument are clearly set out in Order 6 rules 1-10 and Order 10 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 and so the Court found no rule in support of the brief of argument filed along with this application and it was accordingly discountenanced.
Now, in respect of this application, the applicant is certainly not asking us to correct minor errors. He seeks to upturn the judgment already given. The Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria 1979 says of the judgment of Supreme Court.
Section 215: “Without prejudice to the powers of the President or the Governor of a state with respect to prerogative of mercy, no appeal shall lie to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court.”
The phrase” any other body or person” includes the Supreme Court itself. This application is purportedly brought under Order 8 rule 16 Supreme Court Rules 1985 and the inherent powers of this Court especially section 6 (6)(a) of the Constitution 1979. Section 6 of the Constitution (supra) relates to judicial powers of the Federation and subsection 6(a) is clear as to its intendment when it states:
“(6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section
(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution to all inherent powers and sanctions of a Court of law”.
The clear provisions of this subsection cannot be ignored. Inherent powers of the Court should not be extended beyond what the statutes, the Constitution and rules of Court provide. There is nothing inherent in the powers of a Court which is not covered by a law. To assume jurisdiction where none exists is not inherent power simply because a Court feels it would be just so to do. Much emphasis is placed by Balonwu, S.A.N. on the provisions of Order 8 rule 16 Supreme Court Rules which states:
Order 8 rule 16:
“The Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or intention. A judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. A judgment or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Court decided nor shall the operative and substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted.”
What this Court is being asked to do is to review its judgment, not to correct clerical errors or errors from accidental slip or omission but to overturn the judgment already given. This Court has consistently refused to be dragged into this pitfall. The purpose of this application is clear, it is an appeal cloaked in the guise of a motion. From the wordings of the motion and the grounds for bringing it, it is manifestly clear that the validity of the judgment of this Court as given on 26th February, 1993 is being challenged. Unlike the case of Prince Yahaya Adigun and 2 Ors v. The Attorney-General of Oyo State 2 NWLR (Pt.56) 197 where the validity of Order 8 rule 16 (supra) was being questioned by the applicant in that matter, the present applicant appears to seek strength in the Rule.
Once the Supreme Court has entered judgment in a case, that decision is final and will remain so for ever. The law may in future be amended to affect future issues on the same subject, but for the case decided, that is the end of the matter. The irony of this application is that the protagonist of this application on four previous occasions, Chief Williams, S.A.N. is now on the receiving end. But this Court has on each occasion stood firmly that it lacked jurisdiction. [See Minister of Lagos Affairs. Mines and Power & Anor v. Chief Akin-Olugbade & Ors (1947) 11 S.C. 11; Akin-Olugbade & Ors v. Onigbongbo Community & Ors (1974) 6 S.C. 1.
The purport of Order 8 rule 16 is to carry out what is termed “slip rule” i.e. to correct clerical errors or omissions or gaps to give meaning to the judgment or decision of the Court and not to vary it. [See Ashiyanbi & Ors v. Adeniji (1967) 1 All NLR 861. Once an order has been given, be it judgment or ruling, the Supreme Court cannot thereafter change that decision. [Chukwuka v. Ezulike (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.45) 892.
It is to be emphatically restated that this motion with a double edged sword of alleged powers under the Constitution [S.6 (6)(a) and under the Rules (Order 8 rule 16) should once and for all be nailed in its coffin. The law does not permit this Court a double say in the same manner. It either allows or dismisses an appeal, not the two on the same issue. The inherent powers under S.6(6) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to reverse a decision already given by this Court Iro Egbu & Ors v. Chief Ogburu Urum & Anor (1981) 4 S.C. 1; Sodeinde Brothers (Nig) Ltd v. African Continental Bank Ltd (1982) 6 S.C. 137; Yonwuren v. Modern Signs (Nig) Ltd (1985) 2 S.C.; John Enemoh & Anor v. Chief Daniel Onolepite & Ors (1985) 2 S.C. and Nwaora v. Nwakonohi (1985) 2 S.C. (all consolidated at P. 86)
In conclusion, this application is completely misconceived and appears to me no more than a voyage of discovery on a matter that has been several times tried and tested in this Court without success. This Court is indirectly being called upon to set aside its decision. There is no jurisdiction to do so. The application is dismissed with N100.00 costs to the respondent.
SC.101/1993
