All over the world, where the common law is being practiced, it is standard for the apex court to review its own judgments. In Nigeria, there are a few occasions where the Supreme Court has been asked to review its decision in Nigeria and on those occasions, a couple of them were successful. But the standards for review are very high in order to ensure the apex court is not inundated with frivolous appeals for review and counter-reviews. Justice Chukwudifa “Socrates” Oputa was the one who acknowledged that Supreme Court judges can make mistakes, acknowledging that they are not saints; they are mortals. Going back in time, herewith the cases that the apex court reversed itself
1-Barrister Oriker Jev & Ors v Iyortom & Ors (2015) NWLR (Pt.1483) 484.
One of the successful reviews was in the case of Barrister Oriker Jev & Ors v Iyortom & Ors (2015) NWLR (Pt.1483) 484. Interestingly, it was an electoral matter. The Supreme Court had in an earlier judgment in the matter ordered that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conduct a run-off election. During the review, the apex court discovered that it made the order based on a wrong interpretation of Section 133(2) in conjunction with Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). On a post-judgment application by one of the parties, the court set aside the earlier order and instead ordered INEC to issue the applicant a certificate of return. The court further held:
oThat there is no constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to review its ruling as section 235 of the Constitution gives a stamp of finality to any decision of the Supreme Court.
o That there is, however, as the Supreme Court has decided in several cases, an inherent power to set aside its verdict on inappropriate or deserving cases but that such inherent jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction as though the matter before it is another appeal intended to afford the losing litigants another opportunity to restate or re-argue their appeal.
o The Supreme Court avoided any direct holding on whether it acted per incuriam (without regard to existing law or precedent) in making the former consequential order, which it was called upon in the application to set aside.
Rather, the court said it had inherent powers to set aside the consequential order, which it had made on the basis of a wrong interpretation of Sections 141 and 133 of the Electoral Act. In holding thus, the court sidestepped the question of whether section 141 of the Electoral Act was unconstitutional, an issue that was raised by the applicant relying on a Federal High Court ruling in Labour Party v Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/399/2011). The court instead held that section 141 does not apply to them and other courts engaged in a pre-election matter.
2- Olorunfemi v Asho (Suit No. SC. 13/1999)
The case of Olorunfemi v Asho (Suit No. SC. 13/1999) presents some particularly interesting aspects similar to the Imo State gubernatorial case of Hope Uzodinma v Emeka Ihedioha. In that case, the Supreme Court is said to have in its unreported ruling dated March 18, 1999, set aside its judgment delivered on January 8, 1999 (reported in Olorunfemi v Asho (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 143) on the ground that it failed to consider the respondent’s cross-appeal before allowing the appellant’s appeal. It ordered that the appeal be heard de novo by another panel of justices of the court.
It is, therefore, evidently clear that where the ground exists, the Supreme Court will not shy away from setting aside its judgments or orders. Having dismissed the case of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Bayelsa, it is most likely that other reviews, that seemingly appear like an appeal would face a similar fate.
“Interest Rei Publicae Res Jidicatas Non-Rescindi” (It is in the interest of the state that things decided are not rescinded). Let all candidates and their parties wait for the next election. We cannot because of a four-year political tenure denigrate the most sacred institution of democracy. I hail the justices of the Supreme Court for their courage and sagacity, which should be replicated in all other frivolous applications still pending for review.”
