JOKOLO V. GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE (2026)

Background

Alhaji Almustapha Haruna Jokolo, who had been deposed as the 19th Emir of Gwandu, Kebbi State, in 2005, successfully challenged his deposition before the Kebbi State High Court. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, but that appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s judgment was affirmed. The respondents then appealed to the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/266/2017 (opens in a new tab). On 4 June 2025, a majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal, and entered a decision adverse to Jokolo. The majority judgment was reported as Governor of Kebbi State v. Jokolo (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2054) 191.

Following that decision, Jokolo filed a motion on notice dated 2 October 2025. He asked the Supreme Court to review and set aside its final judgment on the grounds that it had been procured through fraudulent misrepresentation of section 4(3) of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 21, 1996. He also argued that the decision was reached per incuriam, subordinated justice to an alleged absurdity, and unlawfully denied him access to court and a fair hearing. In addition, he asked the Supreme Court to constitute a fresh panel to rehear the original appeal on its merits.

Issues

1. Whether the application properly invoked the Supreme Court’s limited power under Order 20 rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024.
2. Whether the Supreme Court could review or set aside its own final judgment on the grounds alleged by the applicant.
3. Whether a new panel of the Supreme Court could be constituted to rehear an appeal already finally determined.
4. Whether arguments previously presented and answered during the appeal could subsequently be re-labelled as fraudulent misrepresentation.
5. Whether the filing of the application amounted to professional misconduct and abuse of the court’s process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the application. It held that Order 20 rule 4 is a narrow “slip rule” provision. Its purpose is to correct clerical mistakes, accidental slips or omissions, or to vary an order so that it accurately expresses the court’s meaning and intention. It cannot be used to re-argue an appeal, challenge the reasoning of the court, substitute a different substantive decision, or obtain a rehearing.

The court recognised that it possesses inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment in appropriate and exceptional circumstances. However, that inherent power cannot be transformed into an appellate jurisdiction over the court’s own final decision. Once the Supreme Court has decided an issue and its decision has been embodied in an effective judgment or order, it becomes functus officio. It cannot reopen the merits or replace its decision merely because a party considers the decision erroneous, unjust or per incuriam.

The court further applied section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, which makes the Supreme Court the final court of the land and provides that no appeal lies from any determination of the Supreme Court to any other body or person. Finality means that litigation must come to an end. A dissatisfied litigant cannot circumvent that constitutional finality by presenting a motion for review in the form of a correction application.

Court Findings

The court found that the applicant’s complaints were directed at the substance of the 2025 judgment, rather than at any clerical error or accidental omission. The request for a fresh panel was particularly impermissible. The Supreme Court held that it could not be invited to reconstitute itself simply because a litigant disagreed with the panel’s conclusion. Such a practice would produce endless litigation, undermine the hierarchy of courts, and erode public confidence in the certainty of judicial decisions.

The allegation of fraud also failed. The legal arguments concerning section 4(3) of the Kebbi State Chiefs Law had been fully presented, opposed and considered during the original appeal. The applicant had responded to those arguments before judgment and had not then characterised them as fraudulent. The court held that a party cannot re-label an unsuccessful legal argument as fraud merely because the court accepted the opposing interpretation. A disagreement on the meaning or application of a statute is not, without more, fraudulent misrepresentation to the court.

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the conduct of the applicant’s counsel, S. M. Danyaro, describing the application as frivolous, vexatious, abusive and procedurally incompetent. Counsel was reminded that a legal practitioner is an officer of the court and must exercise professional judgment before filing speculative or unsustainable processes.

Conclusion

The application to review and set aside the Supreme Court’s judgment of 4 June 2025, and to constitute a new panel to rehear Appeal No. SC/266/2017, was dismissed. The earlier judgment remained final, subsisting and binding on all parties. The court ordered counsel for the applicant personally to pay ₦50,000,000 in costs to the respondents within 90 days and to file a certificate of compliance. Failure to comply would result in counsel losing the right of audience in any court in Nigeria until compliance.

Significance

The decision reaffirms the constitutional finality of Supreme Court judgments in Nigeria. It draws a clear line between permissible correction of a judgment that contains a clerical slip and impermissible substantive review. It also confirms that allegations of fraud, denial of fair hearing or per incuriam reasoning cannot be used as labels for a second appeal where the complaint is simply dissatisfaction with the court’s legal analysis. Finally, the ruling demonstrates that counsel may face severe personal sanctions where a knowingly untenable application abuses the process of the apex court.