ALLI V. N.U.C. (2018)

Background

This ruling concerned an application by Rev. Segun Ademola Alli seeking to set aside an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court and to have his appeal relisted for hearing on the merits. The substantive appeal, numbered SC.642/2013, arose from proceedings concerning the accreditation and operation of the law programme of Lead City University, Ibadan. The appeal had come to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal, Ibadan.

During the pendency of the appeal, the National Universities Commission (NUC), the first respondent, filed a motion on 26 March 2015 asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal because it had been overtaken by events and had become academic. The motion relied substantially on an accreditation document, identified in the earlier ruling as exhibit AGA1 or KGA1, showing that the university’s law programme had subsequently received approval or accreditation after the university had complied with the judgment of the lower court.

On 29 February 2016, the Supreme Court granted the respondent’s motion and dismissed the appeal. It held that the accreditation had removed the live controversy between the parties and had effectively undermined the appellant’s claims. The Court regarded the accreditation not as impermissible self-help, but as a valid compromise or implementation of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant thereafter filed the present motion on notice on 31 March 2016. He argued that the earlier motion was incompetent because the same counsel had prepared and signed the motion and written address and had also sworn to the supporting affidavit. He further challenged the admissibility and certification of the accreditation document, alleged that the Supreme Court had failed to consider his counter-affidavit and written address, and contended that the earlier ruling was made without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity.

Issue

The central issue was whether, in the circumstances, the Supreme Court could set aside its earlier ruling dismissing the appeal and relist the appeal for determination on the merits. The Court also considered whether the application constituted an abuse of court process and whether it was, in substance, an invitation to the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its own decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the application. It reaffirmed that a court may relist a matter only where the recognised conditions for relisting are established. These include whether the applicant had a good reason for being absent at the hearing, whether there was a satisfactory explanation for any delay in bringing the application, whether the respondent would suffer prejudice or embarrassment if rehearing were ordered, and whether the applicant’s case was manifestly unsupportable.

The Court further held that the Supreme Court has inherent power to correct or modify its own order where the order does not accurately express what the Court intended to record. This limited power includes correcting clerical or accidental errors and clarifying an obscure sentence or order. It does not, however, confer a general power to reconsider the merits of a concluded decision.

Once the Supreme Court has determined an issue and its decision has been embodied in an effective judgment or order, it becomes functus officio. It cannot reopen the matter and substitute a different decision simply because a party believes that the earlier decision was wrong, defective, or based on an erroneous assessment of the evidence. Any attempt to obtain such a result through a differently framed application amounts to an impermissible appeal to the same court over its own judgment.

Court Findings

The Court found that the appellant’s complaints substantially repeated the objections already raised in his counter-affidavit to the respondent’s earlier motion. Those objections had been considered, or ought to have been raised and pursued, when the original motion was heard. The appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance justifying the setting aside of the earlier ruling.

The Court also held that there was no remaining live controversy. Lead City University had closed the impugned law faculty and subsequently obtained fresh approval from the NUC on 3 December 2014. Consequently, the appeal had become academic. Courts exist to determine concrete disputes between parties, not to engage in abstract or academic discourse. An abuse of court process is the improper use of judicial proceedings, and the Court regarded the present application as an attempt to prolong litigation over an issue that had already been resolved.

Because the earlier appeal had been dismissed, rather than merely struck out, and because no live issue remained for determination, the Court concluded that it could not be relisted. The alleged defects in the earlier proceedings did not bring the application within the narrow jurisdiction to correct clerical errors or accidental slips.

Conclusion

The application to set aside the ruling of 29 February 2016 and relist appeal SC.642/2013 was dismissed for want of merit. The Supreme Court maintained its earlier decision that the appeal had been overtaken by events and was academic. A majority order awarded N1,000,000 in costs against the appellant in favour of the first respondent.

Significance

Alli v. N.U.C. is important for its clear restatement of the finality of Supreme Court decisions. It confirms that the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to correct its orders is narrow and procedural, not appellate. Litigants cannot use allegations of jurisdictional error, evidential insufficiency, or failure to accept an argument as a means of securing a rehearing before the same court. The decision also illustrates the Court’s unwillingness to decide academic questions and its readiness to treat repetitive or collateral proceedings as an abuse of process.