PRINCE RAZAK YESUFU OGIEFO V. HRH, JAFARU ISESELE 1, ONOGIE OF EWU & ORS (2026)

Background

The Applicant sought, by motion on notice, to set aside the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on 19 July 2024 in Appeal No. SC/147/2014 and to strike out the proceedings and judgments in the related Court of Appeal and Edo State High Court matters. The underlying dispute concerned the succession to the stool of the Onogie of Ewu. The 1st Respondent had commenced Suit No. HEK/32/2000, later redesignated as Suit No. B/457/2001, challenging the Applicant’s appointment and claiming entitlement to the traditional stool. The trial court entered judgment for the 1st Respondent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, allowed the 1st Respondent’s cross-appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal of the 4th–6th Respondents. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal in its judgment of 19 July 2024.

The Applicant argued that the 1st Respondent had failed to comply with sections 19(2) and 22(3) of the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Law of Bendel State, 1979, applicable in Edo State. According to the Applicant, the 1st Respondent was required to complain to or petition the Edo State Executive Council within 21 days before commencing the action, and this failure deprived all the courts of jurisdiction.

Issues

The principal issue was whether the Supreme Court should set aside its concluded judgment, and consequently the judgments of the lower courts, on the ground that the original action was commenced without compliance with a statutory condition precedent. The Court also considered the doctrine of finality of Supreme Court judgments, the limited inherent power to set aside a judgment, whether the jurisdictional objection was improperly raised for the first time after judgment, and whether the application was brought within a reasonable time.

Ratio Decidendi

A Supreme Court judgment is final and cannot be reviewed or reopened as though the Court were sitting on appeal over its own decision. Under Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024, the Court may correct only clerical mistakes, accidental slips or omissions, or make a variation necessary to give effect to the judgment’s meaning; it cannot substitute or vary the substantive decision.

The Court retains an exceptional inherent power to set aside its own judgment in circumstances such as fraud or deceit, a judgment that is a nullity, a decision procured through a mistaken belief in the parties’ consent, or other recognised circumstances including a judgment given per incuriam, a manifest error of law or a miscarriage of justice. That power cannot be used as a vehicle for rehearing a concluded appeal.

Although jurisdiction may generally be raised at any stage of pending proceedings, that principle does not permit a party to raise a fresh jurisdictional argument years after the Supreme Court has finally determined the appeal, where the issue could have been raised earlier. In the absence of a recognised exceptional circumstance, the Court is functus officio.

Court Findings

The Court found that the alleged non-compliance with sections 19(2) and 22(3) was not raised before the trial court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court during the hearing of the substantive appeal. The Applicant had therefore presented a new jurisdictional argument after the dispute had been conclusively determined.

The Applicant did not establish fraud, deceit, a strict legal nullity, mistaken consent, a clerical error, an accidental slip or any other circumstance justifying the exercise of the Court’s exceptional inherent jurisdiction. The application was, in substance, an attempt to obtain a rehearing and to invite the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its own judgment.

The Court also held that the application, filed approximately six months after the 19 July 2024 judgment, was not brought within a reasonable time in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Granting it would undermine the finality of judgments and risk opening the floodgates to similar applications.

Conclusion

The sole issue was resolved against the Applicant. The motion was dismissed as lacking merit. The Supreme Court’s judgment of 19 July 2024 in Appeal No. SC/147/2014 was declared final, binding and subsisting. The lead ruling awarded ₦10,000,000 costs against the Applicant in favour of the Respondents; Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC, additionally awarded ₦5,000,000 costs against the Applicant in favour of the Respondent.

Significance

The ruling reaffirms the exceptionally narrow scope of the Supreme Court’s power to revisit its own judgments. It distinguishes a genuine challenge to a null judgment from an attempt to introduce a new jurisdictional objection after the conclusion of an appeal. The decision emphasises that finality, certainty and stability in the administration of justice prevent litigants from using inherent jurisdiction to relitigate matters already decided by the apex court.