• “Order 20 Rule 4 Is A Limited Housekeeping Provision And Not A Tool For Rehearing An Appeal,” Justice Tukur Rules
• “Relabeling A Losing Argument As Fraud After Judgment Is Dishonest And A Gross Abuse Of Process,” Justice Agim Holds
• “Pay Fifty Million Naira Personally Or Lose Your Right Of Audience In Every Court In Nigeria,” Court Orders Jokolo’s Counsel
The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the deposed 19th Emir of Gwandu, Alhaji Almustapha Haruna Jokolo, seeking to review and set aside its 4 June 2025 judgment that upheld his deposition, holding that the apex court lacks the power to sit on appeal over its own final decision and that the application was a gross abuse of court process.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, 15 May 2026, in Suit No. SC/266/2017, Alhaji Almustapha Haruna Jokolo v. Governor of Kebbi State & 12 Others, a five-member panel unanimously dismissed the motion and ordered Jokolo’s counsel, S.M. Danyaro Esq., to personally pay costs of ₦50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) to the respondents.
The lead ruling was delivered by Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur, with Justices Uwani Musa Abba Aji, Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim and Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme concurring.
Background to the Application
The court recalled that Jokolo, who was installed as Emir of Gwandu in 2005 and later deposed, challenged his deposition at the Kebbi State High Court and obtained judgment in his favour. The Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, upheld the High Court’s decision. On further appeal, the Supreme Court, by a majority (Agim, Nwosu-Iheme and Tukur JJSC), allowed the respondents’ cross-appeal on 4 June 2025 and set aside the two lower courts’ judgments, while the minority (Abba Aji and Saulawa JJSC) would have affirmed them.
By a motion filed on 2 October 2025 under Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 and Sections 6(6)(b) and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, Jokolo asked the court to review and set aside that judgment on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation of law and violation of constitutional provisions, and to constitute a fresh panel to rehear the appeal on the merits. He contended that the respondents had misrepresented Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 21, Laws of Kebbi State 1996, that the resulting decision was per incuriam, and that an unlawful ouster of jurisdiction had denied him access to court and fair hearing.
Order 20 Rule 4 Confined to Clerical Corrections
Justice Tukur held that Order 20 Rule 4 is a narrow procedural provision designed solely to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the court’s judgments, confined to the correction of clerical mistakes, accidental slips or omissions, and is not a gateway for rearguing issues already determined.
He stated that the rule is a limited housekeeping provision and nothing more, and that the Supreme Court is not a forum for endless litigation but the court of last resort whose pronouncements bring disputes to a definitive close. Relying on Igwe v. Kalu and Alao v. ACB Ltd, he held that the court’s inherent power to set aside its judgment cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction to afford a losing litigant another opportunity to reargue an appeal.
Functus Officio and the Finality of the Supreme Court
Justice Abba Aji, relying on Alli v. NUC, reaffirmed that once the court decides an issue and the decision is embodied in an effective judgment, it becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the matter or substitute a different decision.
Justice Agim, in his concurring opinion, anchored the finality on Section 235 of the Constitution, holding that no appeal lies from any determination of the Supreme Court and that there is no constitutional provision giving the court jurisdiction to review or set aside its own judgment, including on the ground that it was reached per incuriam or was incorrect.
Relabeling Arguments as Fraud Rejected
On the fraud allegation, Justice Agim held that a party cannot simply relabel arguments it had already responded to during hearing as fraudulent merely because it is dissatisfied with the judgment. He reasoned that if losing parties could recharacterise a successful argument as fraud and apply to set aside a judgment, the result would be endless litigation over an already decided issue.
He noted that both sides had argued the meaning and application of Section 4(3) before judgment, each insisting its view was correct, and that the applicant had failed to show how an opponent’s contrary legal opinion amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation. The respondents had earlier cited GTB v. Innoson for the principle that fraud must be extrinsic, material and capable of misleading the court, conditions the court found unmet where the complaint was mere disagreement with judicial interpretation. The court also reaffirmed, on the authority of F.G.N. v. Zebra Energy Ltd, that dissenting opinions, though persuasive, are not binding law and cannot be elevated over the majority decision.
Request for a Fresh Panel Condemned
The court strongly condemned the prayer for a new panel to rehear a concluded appeal. Justice Tukur described it as an affront of the highest order to the authority, dignity and institutional integrity of the court, and warned against a growing tendency of practitioners filing clearly untenable applications in the hope that persistence might yield a different outcome. Citing Pagade Chemicals Ltd v. N.D.I.C., he stressed that frivolous and vexatious processes must be met with stiff penalties in cost and reprimand.
Justice Nwosu-Iheme, concurring, described the application as thoughtless, juvenile and a gross abuse of process amounting to professional misconduct, and said it would haunt the counsel for the rest of his career.
Dismissing the application as devoid of merit and a gross abuse of process, the court held that its 4 June 2025 judgment in Appeal No. SC/266/2017 remains final, subsisting and binding on all parties.
The court ordered that costs of ₦50,000,000 be paid personally by the applicant’s counsel, S.M. Danyaro Esq., to the respondents within 90 days, with a certificate of compliance to be filed in line with Order 12 Rules 4(d), 6 and 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024. Failing compliance, the court ordered, counsel shall cease to have right of audience in any court in Nigeria until the costs are paid.
S.M. Danyaro appeared for the applicant, while a respondents’ team led by Y.C. Maikyau SAN, U.O. Sule SAN and Abdullahi Yahaya SAN appeared for the 1st to 13th respondents.
RULING JOKOLO AND GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE TheNigerialawyer
The ruling firmly closes the long-running Gwandu throne dispute and leaves Jokolo’s 2005 deposition standing, with no further legal avenue open at the apex court. Its wider significance lies in the bright line it draws around post-judgment review at the Supreme Court: a final decision cannot be reopened through Order 20 Rule 4, cannot be revisited on a per incuriam complaint once the court is functus officio, and cannot be undone by recasting a losing argument as fraud. Perhaps most striking for the Bar is the personal cost and the threatened bar from audience, signalling that the court is prepared to visit the consequences of frivolous review applications directly on the counsel who file them rather than on the litigant alone.
The post [DOWNLOAD] “Supreme Court Becomes Functus Officio After Final Judgment” — Apex Court Orders Lawyer To Pay ₦50m Or Lose Right Of Audience appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.
