Background
On 2021-10-14, the Supreme Court in SC/CV/687/2021 (Chief Jude Okeke v. APGA) dismissed an appeal brought by forum‐shopping litigants seeking to determine who was the valid National Chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). The Court held that disputes over internal party leadership were non-justiciable and constituted an abuse of court process. That decision was corrected for a clerical slip on 2023-03-24 but remained purely declaratory.
Undeterred, the 1st and 2nd respondents (Chief Victor Ike Oye and Alhaji Rabiu Mustapha) then approached the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court by originating summons on 2023-04-26, seeking to "enforce" the Supreme Court’s subsisting judgment and to obtain numerous declarations and injunctions against the appellant (Otunba Kamaru Lateef Odidan) and INEC. The trial court granted reliefs in favor of respondents. On 2024-06-28 the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, affirmed that decision. Aggrieved, the appellant filed SC.CV/825/2024.
Issues
- Whether lower courts can rewrite a subsisting decision of the Supreme Court or invent findings not made by it.
- Whether the Court of Appeal determined the appeal on correct principles of law.
- Whether the appellant has locus standi to parade himself as APGA National Chairman.
Ratio Decidendi
- Section 235, 1999 Constitution: No appeal from Supreme Court; finality of its decisions.
- Section 287(1), 1999 Constitution: Decisions of SC are enforceable by all authorities and lower courts but cannot be expanded or interpreted beyond their express terms.
- Declaratory vs. Executory Judgment: Only executory orders that command action or payment are enforceable by execution; purely declaratory rulings cannot be enforced.
- Lower courts lack jurisdiction to interpret, adumbrate or expatiate on apex court decisions; they must enforce only what was expressly ordered.
- Misuse of process and forum shopping are to be deprecated; litigants and counsel must avoid frivolous or vexatious claims.
Court Findings
The unanimous Supreme Court (Adah JSC delivering lead judgment) found that:
- There was no executory order in the 2021 APGA decision; it was purely declaratory, so cannot be "enforced."
- The trial court and Court of Appeal erred by effectively "rewriting" the Supreme Court’s ruling to invent a status quo ante order and by adjudicating on internal party affairs already dismissed as non-justiciable.
- Lower courts must not expand or add to Supreme Court judgments, or entertain enforcement suits of declaratory orders.
- The respondents’ originating summons constituted an abuse of process and lacked jurisdiction, since INEC is a federal agency and only the Federal High Court may hear such matters reserved to it.
- The appellant clearly had standing to defend his purported leadership role, but the courts below should never have entertained the dispute over APGA chairmanship.
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed. The judgments of the FCT High Court (2023-04-26) and Court of Appeal (2024-06-28) were set aside. The originating summons by respondents was dismissed as an abuse of process. Appeal SC.CV/826/2024 was ordered to abide by this decision. Costs of ₦20,000,000.00 were awarded to appellant against the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Significance
This decision underscores the absolute finality of Supreme Court judgments in Nigeria and clarifies the limited role of lower courts in enforcement proceedings. It reaffirms that:
- Court users must not engage in forum shopping or seek to re-litigate issues finally decided by the apex court.
- Declaratory judgments, without executory directives, are not enforceable orders.
- Lower courts must enforce only the precise terms of Supreme Court orders and avoid interpreting or expanding on them.
- Judicial officers and legal practitioners must guard against misuse of process and uphold public confidence in the judiciary by rejecting frivolous briefs and baseless claims.