OYE V. ODIDAN (2024)

Background

This appeal concerned an attempt to obtain and enforce what the first and second respondents described as a subsisting judgment of the Supreme Court concerning the leadership of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). In an earlier appeal, SC/CV/687/2021, the Supreme Court had dismissed proceedings relating to the identity of APGA’s National Chairman and the validity of the replacement of the party’s chairman. The earlier decision, delivered on 14 October 2021 and subsequently corrected on 24 March 2023 to rectify a clerical slip, treated the dispute as one concerning the internal affairs of a political party and therefore not justiciable. The Supreme Court also regarded the earlier proceedings as an abuse of the court’s process.

Despite that decision, the first and second respondents commenced proceedings by originating summons before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. They sought declarations that the Supreme Court had recognised a particular APGA National Executive Committee, together with orders requiring the appellant and INEC to recognise and deal with that committee. They also sought injunctions restraining the appellant from presenting himself as APGA’s National Chairman and preventing the organisation of party meetings, congresses, primaries and conventions by persons other than the committee they supported.

The FCT High Court entered judgment for the respondents. The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, affirmed that decision on 28 June 2024. Chief Victor Oye then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts had rewritten the earlier Supreme Court judgment, invented findings and orders that were not contained in it, and improperly determined an issue concerning APGA’s internal leadership.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeal were entitled to rewrite or expand the earlier Supreme Court judgment in SC/CV/687/2021, including the correction issued in 2023.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct legal principles in affirming the judgment of the FCT High Court.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly held that the appellant lacked locus standi to present himself as APGA’s National Chairman.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, makes the determination of the Supreme Court final: no appeal lies from it to any other body or person, subject only to the constitutional reference to the prerogative of mercy. This constitutional finality reflects the fundamental principle that litigation must eventually come to an end. Once an issue has travelled through the judicial hierarchy and has been determined by the apex court, no lower court may reopen, modify or enlarge the determination.

The Court further relied on section 287(1) of the Constitution, which requires the decisions of the Supreme Court to be enforced throughout Nigeria by all authorities, persons and courts with subordinate jurisdiction. However, enforcement must correspond precisely with what the Supreme Court actually decided. A lower court’s constitutional duty is to enforce the decision, not to interpret, paraphrase, expand or read into it a conclusion or order that is absent from the judgment.

The Court distinguished between an executory judgment and a declaratory judgment. An executory judgment declares the parties’ rights and additionally directs a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a specific act; it may be enforced through execution if disobeyed. A declaratory judgment merely pronounces the existence or non-existence of a legal relationship or right. It is complete in itself and ordinarily contains no command capable of enforcement by execution.

On examination of SC/CV/687/2021 and the subsequent correction, the Supreme Court found no executory order requiring the lower courts to compel recognition of a particular APGA executive committee or to restrain the appellant. The respondents’ originating summons therefore did not genuinely seek enforcement. Instead, it attempted to revive and relitigate the question of APGA’s leadership, which the Supreme Court had already treated as an internal party matter and non-justiciable.

Court Findings

The Court found that the lower courts erred by treating the earlier Supreme Court decision as if it contained enforceable orders. They had no jurisdiction to create a status quo order, identify a recognised chairman or determine afresh who was entitled to lead APGA. The issue of who parades himself as chairman of a political party was, in the circumstances, not a matter for judicial determination.

The Court also criticised the decision to entertain proceedings that were essentially an abuse of process. Justice Abubakar emphasised that counsel should not pursue frivolous, vexatious or plainly hopeless litigation and stated that lawyers may need to be held accountable for reckless and unprofessional conduct. He also urged judicial officers to protect the dignity of the judiciary through careful and responsible adjudication, noting that ill-considered judgments can worsen public distrust of the courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 28 June 2024 and dismissed the respondents’ originating summons as an abuse of court process. The related appeal, SC/CV/826/2024, was ordered to abide by the decision in this appeal. Costs of N20,000,000 were awarded in favour of the appellant against the first and second respondents.

Significance

Oye v. Odidan is important for Nigerian constitutional and procedural law. It reinforces the supremacy and finality of Supreme Court decisions under section 235 and clarifies the enforcement obligation imposed by section 287(1). The decision warns subordinate courts that they must enforce an apex court judgment exactly as delivered and cannot manufacture additional findings or orders under the guise of enforcement. It also provides a clear explanation of the difference between declaratory and executory judgments, confirming that a purely declaratory judgment is not ordinarily enforceable by execution. Finally, the case reiterates the judicial reluctance to intervene in disputes concerning the internal administration and leadership of political parties where the matter is not justiciable.