APPELLATE PRACTICE — Review of Supreme Court Judgment — Exceptional Circumstances for Setting Aside
Ratio Decidendi
Per Adekeye, JSC, in Dingyadi & Ors v. INEC & Ors (2011) NLC-123-32-2010(SC) at pp. 19—20; Paras E—A:
"The Supreme Court can set aside its judgment in the following circumstances: (a) when the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit either in the court or of one or more of the parties; (b) where the judgment is a nullity and a person affected by the order of court which can be described as a nullity is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside; (c) when it is obvious that the court was misled into giving judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it; (d) where the judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction; (e) where the procedure adopted was such as to deprive the decision or judgment of the character of a legitimate adjudication."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes the exceptional circumstances in which the Supreme Court may set aside its judgment: fraud, nullity, mistaken belief of consent, absence of jurisdiction, or procedure depriving the judgment of legitimate adjudication. The principle applies where review is sought. It ensures that only exceptional cases are reopened. The principle reflects the limited scope of review. It prevents abuse of the review process. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on setting aside Supreme Court judgments.