OKEKE V. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA) (2023)

Background

This ruling concerned an application by Chief Edozie Njoku, described as an interested person, seeking correction of two apparent errors in an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 14 October 2021. The earlier judgment arose from disputes concerning the leadership of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), particularly who was entitled to act as National Chairman after the alleged suspension or removal of Chief Edozie Njoku.

Alhaji Rabiu Garba Aliyu had instituted proceedings before the High Court of Jigawa State against Chief Jude Okeke and the Independent National Electoral Commission. He contended that, following Chief Njoku’s suspension as National Chairman, he, as Deputy National Chairman (North) and the most senior national member of the party, ought to have been appointed Acting National Chairman rather than Chief Okeke, who was Deputy National Chairman (South). Chief Njoku was not joined as a party, although the trial court made findings directly affecting his position.

The trial court held that Chief Njoku had been lawfully removed and that Chief Okeke was properly appointed to fill the vacancy pending a party convention. The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed an appeal, set aside the trial court’s decision, and held that the suit was an abuse of process involving forum shopping. It also held that Chief Njoku ought to have been joined because the proceedings affected his rights.

Two appeals were brought to the Supreme Court: SC/CV/686/2021 and SC/CV/687/2021. At the hearing, the parties agreed, and the Supreme Court ordered, that the judgment in appeal SC/CV/687/2021 would bind the sister appeal, SC/CV/686/2021. However, in the delivered lead judgment, the appeal number was mistakenly stated as SC/CV/686/2021. In addition, a passage referred to Chief Victor Oye as the chairman whose replacement was in issue, whereas the person involved in the underlying dispute was Chief Edozie Njoku.

Chief Njoku later applied under Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. He sought leave to make the application as an interested party and requested that the erroneous appeal number and the mistaken name be corrected. He explained that the error had caused serious personal and legal consequences, including his arrest and prosecution for allegedly forging a Supreme Court judgment.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application brought by a person who was not formally a party to the concluded appeal.
2. Whether the application was incompetent or constituted an abuse of court process.
3. Whether the applicant established a proper case for correction of a typographical error and accidental slip under Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously granted the application. It held that where jurisdiction is challenged, the jurisdictional question must be determined before considering the substantive issues. The Court relied on the established principle that jurisdiction is fundamental and goes to the competence of the court to adjudicate.

The Court interpreted Order 8 Rule 16 as preserving a narrow power to correct clerical mistakes, errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and to vary a judgment only where necessary to give effect to its meaning or intention. The rule does not permit the Court to reopen the merits, alter its substantive decision, or substitute a different operative order. A correction is permissible where it merely makes the judgment accurately express what the Court actually decided.

The Court further distinguished the inherent jurisdiction of a court from jurisdiction generally. Inherent jurisdiction is only an aspect of the Court’s general jurisdiction; it does not enlarge the Court’s statutory jurisdiction. Rather, it supports and facilitates the effective exercise of jurisdiction already conferred by law.

An interested party was defined as a person affected, or likely to be aggrieved, by the proceedings, order or decision of the court. Such a person must demonstrate a genuine legal interest or grievance and must not be merely a busybody. Chief Njoku satisfied this requirement because the judgment referred to a matter concerning his alleged removal and because the mistaken reference to Chief Victor Oye had adversely affected his liberty, reputation and legal position.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the appeal actually heard and determined was SC/CV/687/2021. The reference to SC/CV/686/2021 on the face of the judgment was therefore an obvious clerical mistake. The Court also examined the pleadings, the trial court proceedings, the Court of Appeal decisions and the context of the Supreme Court judgment. It concluded that Chief Victor Oye was not the person whose suspension or replacement gave rise to the Jigawa litigation. The correct name was Chief Edozie Njoku.

The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the application sought to vary the substantive judgment. Correcting the appeal number and replacing the incorrect name did not alter the Court’s decision that the dispute was an internal party matter, that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, or that the lower court’s judgment should be set aside. The corrections merely ensured that the judgment accurately reflected the facts and the Court’s intention.

The Court also held that filing an application expressly permitted by Order 8 Rule 16 could not, without more, amount to an abuse of court process. The applicant’s earlier correspondence and attempt to obtain correction administratively did not deprive him of the right to use the formal procedure directed by the Supreme Court’s registry.

Conclusion

The application was granted as prayed. The Supreme Court ordered that the reference to appeal No. SC/CV/686/2021 on the judgment delivered on 14 October 2021 be corrected and replaced with SC/CV/687/2021. It further ordered that the reference to “Chief Victor Oye” at page 13 of the judgment be deleted and replaced with “Edozie Njoku.” The corrected sentence was to state that the dispute concerned whether the Chairman, Edozie Njoku, was validly replaced.

Significance

Okeke v. APGA confirms the limited but important jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to correct its own judgments after delivery. The decision protects the finality of judgments while recognising that obvious clerical errors and accidental slips should not be allowed to distort the record or cause injustice. It also clarifies that a non-party may apply for correction where the judgment genuinely affects or threatens his legal interests. The ruling is particularly significant because it demonstrates that procedural accuracy in appellate judgments can have real consequences for liberty, reputation and the administration of justice. Order 8 Rule 16 is therefore a corrective, not appellate, jurisdiction: it permits the Court to make its judgment say what it decided, but not to decide the case again.