27/09/2024
DASUKI v. THE D.G, SSS & ORS
(2019) LPELR-49182(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, the 22nd day of November, 2019
Suit No: CA/A/806/2018(R)
Before Their Lordship
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA Justice of the Court Of Appeal
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Justice of the Court Of Appeal
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of the Court Of Appeal
Between
COL. MOHAMMED SAMBO DASUKI (RTD) APPELLANT(S)
And
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, STATE SECURITY SERVICES 2. STATE SECURITY SERVICES 3. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION RESPONDENT(S)
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
This is a ruling on an application for an order of Court varying the terms of bail earlier imposed.
FACTS:
The appellant/applicant had on 15-3-2018 filed at the Federal High Court, a suit for the enforcement of his fundamental right to liberty. The case was contested. The Federal High Court, after hearing both sides, determined the case in favour of the appellant and granted him conditional release from custody on bail and refused his claim for damages.
Dissatisfied with that judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds inter alia that the bail conditions were onerous and that the Federal High Court's refusal to grant his claim for damages was wrong. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the conditions imposed by the Federal High Court for the release of the appellant on bail and awarded damages of 5 Million Naira in favour of the appellant.
The appellant, being unable to meet the new conditions of bail imposed by the Court of Appeal, applied by motion on notice filed on 17-10-2019 for its review and variation of those conditions by imposing different ones.
The motion was supported by a 19 paragraph Affidavit and some documentary Exhibits annexed to the Affidavit. The Respondents in opposition filed a counter affidavit of 8 paragraphs.
ISSUES:
The Court determined the application on a sole issue thus:
"Whether this Court can vary its orders as requested or the applicant has to go to the next appellate Court on appeal."
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, in a majority decision, the Court granted the application.
RATIO DECIDENDI
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S) - Importance of fundamental human rights matters
"By Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress. The mandate to enforce fundamental right is a very prime and fundamental one. Every Court must stand up to defend the right of the citizenry. In the case of Nwadiogbu v. ARBDA & Anor. (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 364, the Supreme Court endorsed the fact that the application for enforcement of a fundamental right is time bound. The Supreme Court per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, held: "Time is of the essence/especially where the liberty of anyone is in issue, and so, strict adherence to procedural formalities ought to be put aside when hearing matters on human rights. The Court should rise up and be seen to restore the rights of anyone unjustly detained. Decisions should be delivered if possible immediately or a few days after hearing arguments." ?This decision in Nwadiogbu's case (supra) underscores the fact that the case of enforcement of the fundamental right is not at par with ordinary claims before the Court and they are elevated to that of a constitutional claim where all the requisite attention needed must be deployed effectively to ensure the right of the applicant is enforced."
Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH ,J.C.A ( Pp. 7-9, paras. F-A )
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - BAIL - Whether a Court can vary the conditions of bail where the defendant fails to find sufficient sureties or meet the conditions of bail
"As I pointed out earlier this particular case relates to the fundamental right of the applicant and under our Constitution a person's right to liberty is guaranteed and the person must not be allowed to perish in detention while he is undergoing trial except where by the operation of the law he is legitimately kept in prison awaiting trial. Most often a person undergoing trial is released on bail. In the instant case, the applicant had been granted bail except for the fulfillment of the conditions or the conditionalities for his release on bail. l have carefully gone through the affidavits of the parties to this motion and having regards to the facts and the circumstances of this case it is my humble view that the Court has the competence to vary the condition for bail laid out earlier by this Court. It does not require the applicant going through the process of appeal to get a remedy ex debito justatiae which is that which the applicant gets as of right in accordance with the requirements of justice. Bail under our law is not meant to be a mirage. By Section 165(1) of the Administration of criminal Justice Act, the conditions for bail in any case shall be at the discretion of the Court with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. (Underlining mine). The contention in the instant application is that the conditions for the bail of the applicant were "excessive and stringent". They now call for variation of the order this Court earlier made to wipe off any cleavage of error. By Section 181(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, the law provides as follows: 181 Where a defendant required a Court to find sufficient sureties fails to do so, the Court, shall unless it is just and proper in the circumstances, make some other order in the case of a defendant: (a) charge with an offence and released on bail, an order committing him to prison until he is brought to trial, discharge or finds sufficient sureties, or meets such other conditions as the Court may direct in the circumstances; or (b) ordered to give security for good behaviour, an order committing him. to prison for the remainder of the period for which he was originally ordered to give security or until he finds sufficient sureties. (Underlining mine). This law allows the Court to, where there is failure to find sufficient sureties or meet the conditions of bail make a review of the conditions. The onus is therefore on us to carry out the variation within the scope of the powers of this Court to do justice and deliver a remedy ex debito justitiate. In the case of Alao v. ACB Ltd. (2000) LPELR - 408 (SC) the Supreme Court relied on English case of R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex. Parte, Pinochet Ugarte No. 2 (1999) 1 WLR 272 wherein the general principle formulated was that: "Where it is established that in the course of a legitimate adjudication circumstances existed which falsify fundamentally the jurisdiction assumed' or the procedure adopted or the factual legal conclusion or decision reached, the adjudication will be deprived of the character of a legitimate adjudication and will be liable to be set aside ex debito justiae." See also the case of Michael Ors. v. Bank of the North (2015) LPELR - 24680 (SC) where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that: "There is no doubt that a Previous judgment given by a Court can be set aside by the same Court in clear cases of lack of jurisdiction or fraud. In order that fraud may be a ground for vacating the judgment it must be a fraud that is extrinsic or collateral to everything that has been adjudicated upon but not one that has been or must have been deemed to have been dealt with by the Court. See Flower v. Lloyed (1879) 10 D. 327. Where the steps taken by a Court in the course of its proceeding amount to serious procedural irregularity, the mistake or error will render the proceedings a nullity and accordingly its judgment in that respect will be of no legal effect and the inherent power of the Court to set aside a judgment that is palpable a nullity could be invoked by a motion or an application by the party affected by the order. See Ndigwe v. Nwude (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 626) 315 at 339; Ezeokafor v. Ezeilo (1999) 9 (Pt. 619) 513 at 530", per Aka'ahs, JSC. Let me quickly say that of concern it is to us that as a Court we must be ready and sensitive enough not to allow or do anything that will run foul of the law. The issue of involving civil servants or Public Officers in the Public Service of the Federation and the state in bail of people accused of criminal offences has never been the practice in Nigeria or any part of the civilized world. It was an oversight on our part to allow it in. Our Civil and Public Service Rules do not have any room for it. Expecting a Level 16 Servant to own property worth N100,000,000, will be running counter to the Public Service Rules and by extension the war against corruption. It is in this respect that I will act ex debito justitiae to ensure that the aspect of involving serving Public Servant not below the status of Level 16 Officer in either the state or Public Service of the Federation or any of its agencies be removed and I so order. The conditions of bail is hereby varied to bring a new regime of bail condition as follows: 1. Bail is granted the applicant in the sum of One Hundred Million Naira (N100,000,000) with two Sureties in the like sum. 2. The Sureties shall be resident within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, each of which shall furnish evidence of ownership of property in Abuja, FCT,to the lower Court."
Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH ,J.C.A ( Pp. 9-13, paras. A-F )
JUDGMENT AND ORDER - REVIEW OF JUDGMENT - Whether the court can review its own judgment where issues outside the purview of the slip rule are raised "Order 20 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 prohibits this Court from reviewing any judgment once given and delivered by it, save to correct clerical mistakes, accidental slips and omissions or vary the judgment so as to give effect to its intendment, The exact text of the said Order 20 Rule 4 reads thusly- "4. The Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it, save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. A judgment or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Court decided nor shall the operative substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted." A review of the judgment of this Court to vary the conditions of bail imposed in the judgment and replace same with the conditions considered more reasonable is obviously not a review to correct clerical mistakes, errors, accidental slips or omissions in the judgment, It is obviously not a review to give effect to the intention of the judgment as the words of the judgment are clear and unambiguous in their meaning and intention. There is no basis for a review to give effect to the clear meaning and intention of the judgment. A review of the judgment to vary the conditions for release on bail stipulated therein and replace them with new conditions is clearly not a review of the judgment to give effect to its meaning and intention. The judgment correctly represents what it decided. Order 20 Rule 4 prohibits the variation of a judgment that correctly represents what the Court decided. A review of the judgment of this Court to vary it and impose different terms is also clearly prohibited by Order 20 Rule 4. The judgment of this Court having been given and delivered on 13-6-2019, a review of it can only be sought for by way of an appeal against it to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in accordance with S.233 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Generally, once a Court has given and delivered final judgment on the merit of a case before it, it lacks the jurisdiction to review or revisit its judgment except where it is shown that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine case, or that the judgment was obtained by means of fraud or misrepresentation committed on the Court or that the judgment is vitiated by illegality. See Chukwuka & Ors v. Ezulike & Anor (1986) LPELR - 859 (SC), Ugba & Anor v. Suswam & Ors (2014) LPELR - 22882 (SC), Oyeyipo & Anor v. Oyinloye (1987) LPELR - 2883 (SC), Adigun & Ors v. A.G Oyo State (No. 2) LPELR - 4084 (SC), which applied provisions similar to Order 20 Rule 4 Court of Appeal Rules 2016 and restated the general principle on the point. See also Eke v. Ogbonda (2006) 11- 12 SC 31, FBN Plc v. TSA Industries Ltd (2010) LPELR - 1283 (SC). ?It is clear from the appellant's application for review of the judgment of this Court of 13-6-2019, that the ground for the application is not lack of jurisdiction of this Court to deliver the judgment or any fraud or misrepresentation committed on the Court causing it to give that judge or that the judgment is vitiated by illegality or is a nullity for any reason. In the light of the foregoing, I hold that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the appellant's application for review by this Court of its judgment of 13-6-2019." (DISSENTING)
Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM ,J.C.A ( Pp. 15-18, paras. C-D )
READ IN CONTEXTVIEW ANALYTICS
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): On the 13th day of June, 2019 this Court in its judgment allowing the appeal of the appellant/ applicant reviewed the order of bail granted to the applicant by the trial Court. This Court via that inaugurated another regime of conditions for bail. Five months after, part of the conditions set by this Court have become a formidable blockade to the enjoyment of the applicant his fundamental right to liberty as assured by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and declared by this Court in its judgment of 13th June, 2019.
?
The applicant out of necessity has to return to this Court. This is a Motion on Notice filed by the Appellant/ Applicant on the 17th day of October 2019 seeking the following reliefs:
1. AN ORDER for leave (in favour of the Appellant/ Applicant to apply to vary, review and/or substitute the bail terms contained in paragraph 44, items 1 and 4, set out in the judgment of this Honourable Court (Coram: Hon. Justice Tinuade Akomolafe- Wilson; Hon. Justice Peter Olabisi lge; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Agim) delivered on the 13th day of June, 2019 in Appeal No. CA/A/806/2018;
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court to vary, review and/or substitute the bail terms/condition(s) set out at page 44, items 1 and 4 of the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the 13th day of June, 2019 (Coram: Hon. Justice Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson; Hon. Justice Peter Olabisi lge; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Agim) in Appeal. No. CA/A/806/2018, to wit:
1. "Bail is granted to the Appellant in the sum of (One Hundred Million Naira) and two sureties in the like sum. who shall be serving Public Servants not below the status of Level 16 officer in either the State or public service of the Federal (sic) or any of its agencies and shall produce a valid documentation of his/her status to the Registrar of the Court below."
4. "Each of the sureties shall furnish evidence of ownership of property in the Federal Capital Territory FCT) worth N100,000,000.00."
By substituting same as follows:
1. Bail is granted to the Appellant with two sureties standing for him in that regard, the sureties shall be Public Servants not below the status level 16 officers in either state or public service of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, and shall produce a valid documentation of his/her status to the Registrar of the Court below;
4. Each of the Sureties shall furnish evidence of ownership of property in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
3. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.
?
There are seven grounds upon which this application was brought on the face of the motion papers.
Grounds 4, 5 and 6 of the motion are paramount. They provide as follows:
4. The said term, as contained in the judgment, is onerous and cannot be met, as it is not within the lawful means of any level 16 officer to have property worth 100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira Only) in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) or anywhere.
5. The findings of this Court, which is in favour of the Appellant/ Applicant, clearly suggests that the aforementioned stringent condition was an oversight.
6. This Honourable Court has the power to vary its Judgment or Order, so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.
?
The motion is supported by a 19 paragraph Affidavit deposed to by Mary-Ann Ediawe. There are some documentary Exhibits annexed to this Affidavit.
The Respondents in opposition filed a counter affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to Barnabas Onoja, a Litigation Officer in the Chambers of the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation. Paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit are material to the case of the Respondent and I reproduce the said paragraphs here:
4. That I was informed by T.A. Gazali, one of the counsel handling this matter, in his office at the Federal Ministry of Justice, Abuja during briefing on this matter on the 21st of October, 2019 at about 10:00am and I verily believe him to be true as follows:
a. That he has read the processes filed by the Appellant/ Applicant in this matter.
b. That the Appellant/ Applicant on the 15th day of March, 2018 at the Federal High Court filed a suit for the enforcement of the fundamental right of the Appellant/ Applicant.
c. That the trial Court considered the case of the Applicant and decided that the Appellant/ Applicant fundamental rights were infringed upon but in the circumstance of the Appellant/ Applicant's case, granted the Appellant/Applicant bail on terms and refused to award damages to the Appellant/
Applicant.
d. That the Appellant/ Applicant appealed against the judgment of the Federal High Court on the grounds that the bail conditions of the Federal High Court were onerous and that the trial Court was wrong not to have granted damages to the Appellant/ Applicant.
e. That the Court of Appeal agreed with the Appellant/Applicant and reduced the bail conditions and awarded damages of Five Million Naira in favour of the Appellant/ Applicant.
f. That the Court of Appeal has decided the appeal of the Appellant/ Applicant and has no jurisdiction to revisit the issue of Appellant/ Applicant Bail;
g. That the Appellant/ Applicant's application is not competent before this Court.
h. That this Court has finally decided on the Appellant/ Applicant appeal and cannot sit on appeal on its own judgment.
i. That the Appellant/ Applicant do not have the right to draft specific conditions or terms of bail for the Court to adopt.
j. That the Appellant/ Applicant is approbating and reprobating.
k. That the Appellant/ Applicant's application constitutes an abuse of Court or judicial Process.
l. That the Appellant/ Applicant has previously fulfilled bail conditions that the amount fixed was above N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira). The FCT High Court made on the 21st December, 2015 and the one made on the 18th December, 2015 which can be found on Pages 75 to 82 of the record of appeal are hereby attached and marked Exhibit AGF1 and AGF2 respectively.
m. That the bail conditions in Exhibits AGF1 and AGF2 also stipulates that the surety should be a public servant not below the rank of Director with evidence of ownership of landed property worth N250,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira)
n. That one of the Prayers of the Appellant/Applicant in the Notice of Appeal was for this Court to set aside the bail conditions by trial Court and direct the Deputy Chief Registrar to refund the sum of N100.000.000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) only deposited by the Appellant.
o. That the Appellant/ Applicant has not shown that the One Hundred Million Naira deposited in is still in custody of the Deputy Registrar of the Federal High Court.
p. That the Appellant/Applicant did not fulfill all the bail conditions set out in Exhibit A.
q. That Exhibit D was made before the Appellant/Applicant filed his appeal by Exhibit B dated 27th of July, 2018 and Exhibit D1 was made three days after the Appellant/Applicant filed his notice of appeal.
r. That deposit of One Hundred Million Naira to the Chief Registrar was not an independent bail condition but it was attached to other bail conditions as can be seen on Pages 30 to 31 of Exhibit A as attached by the Appellant/Applicant.
6. That the grant of this application will be prejudicial to the Respondents in this matter.
7. That it is not in the interest of justice to review that bail terms already granted the Appellant/ Applicant in this matter by substituting with the terms drafted by the Appellant/Applicant in this application.
From the issues joined by the parties to this application one definite and fundamental point of contest is whether this Court can vary its orders as requested or the applicant has to go to the next appellate Court on appeal.
Let me kick start this consideration by looking at the circumstances of this case. The suit which came on appeal to this Court started as a fundamental right enforcement suit. By Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.
The mandate to enforce fundamental right is a very prime and fundamental one. Every Court must stand up to defend the right of the citizenry. In the case of Nwadiogbu v. ARBDA & Anor. (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 364 , the Supreme Court endorsed the fact that the application for enforcement of a fundamental right is time bound. The Supreme Court per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, held:
"Time is of the essence/especially where the liberty of anyone is in issue, and so, strict adherence to procedural formalities ought to be put aside when hearing matters on human rights. The Court should rise up and be seen to restore the rights of anyone unjustly detained. Decisions should be delivered if possible immediately or a few days after hearing arguments."
? This decision in Nwadiogbu's case (supra) underscores the fact that the case of enforcement of the fundamental right is not at par with ordinary claims before the Court and they are elevated to that of a constitutional claim where all the requisite attention needed must be deployed effectively to ensure the right of the applicant is enforced .
As I pointed out earlier this particular case relates to the fundamental right of the applicant and under our Constitution a person's right to liberty is guaranteed and the person must not be allowed to perish in detention while he is undergoing trial except where by the operation of the law he is legitimately kept in prison awaiting trial. Most often a person undergoing trial is released on bail. In the instant case, the applicant had been granted bail except for the fulfillment of the conditions or the conditionalities for his release on bail.
l have carefully gone through the affidavits of the parties to this motion and having regards to the facts and the circumstances of this case it is my humble view that the Court has the competence to vary the condition for bail laid out earlier by this Court. It does not require the applicant going through the process of appeal to get a remedy ex debito justatiae which is that which the applicant gets as of right in accordance with the requirements of justice.
Bail under our law is not meant to be a mirage. By Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act , the conditions for bail in any case shall be at the discretion of the Court with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. (Underlining mine).
The contention in the instant application is that the conditions for the bail of the applicant were "excessive and stringent". They now call for variation of the order this Court earlier made to wipe off any cleavage of error. By Section 181 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 , the law provides as follows:
181 Where a defendant required a Court to find sufficient sureties fails to do so, the Court, shall unless it is just and proper in the circumstances, make some other order in the case of a defendant:
(a) charge with an offence and released on bail, an order committing him to prison until he is brought to trial, discharge or finds sufficient sureties, or meets such other conditions as the Court may direct in the circumstances; or
(b) ordered to give security for good behaviour, an order committing him. to prison for the remainder of the period for which he was originally ordered to give security or until he finds sufficient sureties. (Underlining mine).
This law allows the Court to, where there is failure to find sufficient sureties or meet the conditions of bail make a review of the conditions. The onus is therefore on us to carry out the variation within the scope of the powers of this Court to do justice and deliver a remedy ex debito justitiate.
In the case of Alao v. ACB Ltd. (2000) LPELR - 408 (SC) the Supreme Court relied on English case of R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex. Parte, Pinochet Ugarte No. 2 (1999) 1 WLR 272 wherein the general principle formulated was that: "Where it is established that in the course of a legitimate adjudication circumstances existed which falsify fundamentally the jurisdiction assumed' or the procedure adopted or the factual legal conclusion or decision reached, the adjudication will be deprived of the character of a legitimate adjudication and will be liable to be set aside ex debito justiae."
See also the case of Michael Ors. v. Bank of the North (2015) LPELR -24690 (SC) where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that:
"There is no doubt that a Previous judgment given by a Court can be set aside by the same Court in clear cases of lack of jurisdiction or fraud. In order that fraud may be a ground for vacating the judgment it must be a fraud that is extrinsic or collateral to everything that has been adjudicated upon but not one that has been or must have been deemed to have been dealt with by the Court. See Flower v. Lloyed (1879) 10 D. 327. Where the steps taken by a Court in the course of its proceeding amount to serious procedural irregularity, the mistake or error will render the proceedings a nullity and accordingly its judgment in that respect will be of no legal effect and the inherent power of the Court to set aside a judgment that is palpable a nullity could be invoked by a motion or an application by the party affected by the order. S ee Ndigwe v. Nwude (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 626) 315 at 339; Ezeokafor v. Ezeilo (1999) 9 (Pt. 619) 513 at 530", per Aka'ahs, JSC.
Let me quickly say that of concern it is to us that as a Court we must be ready and sensitive enough not to allow or do anything that will run foul of the law. The issue of involving civil servants or Public Officers in the Public Service of the Federation and the state in bail of people accused of criminal offences has never been the practice in Nigeria or any part of the civilized world. It was an oversight on our part to allow it in. Our Civil and Public Service Rules do not have any room for it. Expecting a Level 16 Servant to own property worth N100,000,000, will be running counter to the Public Service Rules and by extension the war against corruption. It is in this respect that I will act ex debito justitiae to ensure that the aspect of involving serving Public Servant not below the status of Level 16 Officer in either the state or Public Service of the Federation or any of its agencies be removed and I so order.
The conditions of bail is hereby varied to bring a new regime of bail condition as follows:
1. Bail is granted the applicant in the sum of One Hundred Million Naira (N100,000,000) with two Sureties in the like sum.
2. The Sureties shall be resident within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, each of which shall furnish evidence of ownership of property in Abuja, FCT, to the lower Court .
This shall be the order of the Court.
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. : I have read in draft, the leading Ruling of my learned brother Adah, JCA just delivered and I am in completing agreement with it.
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. :(DISSENTING) I had a preview of the ruling just delivered by my Learned brother, Lord Justice Stephen Jonah Adah, JCA.
With the greatest respect to the other very distinguished and erudite jurists in this case, I hold differently.
The appellant/applicant had on 15-3-2018 filed at the Federal High Court a suit for the enforcement of his fundamental right to liberty. The case was contested. The Federal High Court, after hearing both sides, determined the case in favour of the appellant and granted him conditional release from custody on bail and refused his claim for damages.
?Dissatisfied with that judgment, the appellant appealed to this Court on the grounds inter alia that the bail conditions were onerous and that the Trial Court's refusal to grant his claim for damages was wrong. This Court allowed the appeal and varied the conditions imposed by the trial Court for the release of the appellant on bail and awarded damages of 5 Million Naira in favour of the appellant.
The appellant, dissatisfied with the part of the judgment of this Court imposing new conditions for his release on bail, has by motion on notice filed on 17-10-2019 applied to this Court to review that part of the judgment and vary those conditions by imposing different ones. The exact text of the orders prayed for in that motion are already reproduced in pages 2 to 4 of the lead judgment, so there is no need reproducing them here.
Order 20 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 prohibits this Court from reviewing any judgment once given and delivered by it, save to correct clerical mistakes, accidental slips and omissions or vary the judgment so as to give effect to its intendment, The exact text of the said Order 20 Rule 4 reads thusly-
"4. The Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it, save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. A judgment or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Court decided nor shall the operative substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted."
A review of the judgment of this Court to vary the conditions of bail imposed in the judgment and replace same with the conditions considered more reasonable is obviously not a review to correct clerical mistakes, errors, accidental slips or omissions in the judgment, It is obviously not a review to give effect to the intention of the judgment as the words of the judgment are clear and unambiguous in their meaning and intention. There is no basis for a review to give effect to the clear meaning and intention of the judgment. A review of the judgment to vary the conditions for release on bail stipulated therein and replace them with new conditions is clearly not a review of the judgment to give effect to its meaning and intention. The judgment correctly represents what it decided. Order 20 Rule 4 prohibits the variation of a judgment that correctly represents what the Court decided. A review of the judgment of this Court to vary it and impose different terms is also clearly prohibited by Order 20 Rule 4.
DASUKI V. THE D.G, SSS & ORS
17
The judgment of this Court having been given and delivered on 13-6-2019, a review of it can only be sought for by way of an appeal against it to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in accordance with S.233 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
Generally, once a Court has given and delivered final judgment on the merit of a case before it, it lacks the jurisdiction to review or revisit its judgment except where it is shown that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine case, or that the judgment was obtained by means of fraud or misrepresentation committed on the Court or that the judgment is vitiated by illegality. See Chukwuka & Ors v. Ezulike & Anor (1986) LPELR - 859 (SC), Ugba & Anor v. Suswam & Ors (2014) LPELR - 22882 (SC), Oyeyipo & Anor v. Oyinloye (1987) LPELR - 2883 (SC), Adigun & Ors v. A.G Oyo State (No. 2) LPELR - 40648(SC) , which applied provisions similar to Order 20 Rule 4 Court of Appeal Rules 2016 and restated the general principle on the point. See also Eke v. Ogbonda (2006) 11- 12 SC 31, FBN Plc v. TSA Industries Ltd (2010) LPELR - 1283 (SC).
DASUKI V. THE D.G, SSS & ORS
It is clear from the appellant's application for review of the judgment of this Court of 13-6-2019, that the ground for the application is not lack of jurisdiction of this Court to deliver the judgment or any fraud or misrepresentation committed on the Court causing it to give that judge or that the judgment is vitiated by illegality or is a nullity for any reason.
In the light of the foregoing, I hold that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the appellant's application for review by this Court of its judgment of 13-6-2019 .
Therefore, the said application for review is hereby struck out.
I make no order as to costs.
Appearances:
Ahmed Raji SAN, with him Adeola Adedipe, Esq., Olukayode Ariwoola, Esq., Esele G. Okosun, Esq., David O. Ogundipe, Esq., Portia C. Madu, Esq., Mary Anne Ediane, Esq., and Daniel Braimoh, Esq. For Appellant(s)
T.D. Agbe, Esq., with him, Daniel D. Eni Kandaye, Esq., and Hassan Ndahi, Esq. For Respo
