Functus officio

There is no doubt that this Court has inherent powers to correct or modify its own order on the ground that the order or judgment did not represent what it had intended to record. Thus this Court can correct clerical errors in order to give proper meaning to an otherwise obscure sentence or order. Outside this, the Supreme Court cannot ordinarily review its own judgments. It follows that this Court having decided on an issue, and its decision embodied in its judgment or order that has been made effective, is functus officio and cannot reopen the matter and substitute a different decision to the one already decided. See Chukwuka & Ors v. Ezulike (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 893), Dominic Ede & Anor v. Nwagbara Nwodo Mba & Ors (2011) LPELR – 8234 (SC) (pp 23 -26 paragraphs C – E), Ogbu v. Urum (1981) 4 SC 1, Adefulu & 16 Ors v. Chief Okulaja & 6 ors (1998) 4 SC 223.

There is no doubt that this Court has inherent powers to correct or modify its own order on the ground that the order or judgment did not represent what it had intended to record. Thus this Court can correct clerical errors in order to give proper meaning to an otherwise obscure sentence or order. Outside this, the Supreme Court cannot ordinarily review its own judgments. It follows that this Court having decided on an issue, and its decision embodied in its judgment or order that has been made effective, is functus officio and cannot reopen the matter and substitute a different decision to the one already decided. See Chukwuka & Ors v. Ezulike (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 893), Dominic Ede & Anor v. Nwagbara Nwodo Mba & Ors (2011) LPELR – 8234 (SC) (pp 23 -26 paragraphs C – E), Ogbu v. Urum (1981) 4 SC 1, Adefulu & 16 Ors v. Chief Okulaja & 6 ors (1998) 4 SC 223.

Taking those conditions above stated in view and correlating them with the Ruling of this Court in SC/642/2013 which applicant is asking us to set aside, I must say that the circumstances as I can glean from the supporting affidavits and the countering one is that as little said the better so as not to go into reviewing or sitting on appeal over a decision of this Court which jurisdiction does not exist either statutorily or constitutionally endowed. This Court knowing the imperfections of human beings in relation to certain presentations upon which an exception to that general rule may be made had this to say in the case of Famu & Ors v. Kassim & Ors (2013) 7 NWLR (pt.1352) 166, "except in the limited sense granted byOrder 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court has no power to sit on appeal over its decisions. In this case, the Supreme Court having dismissed the applicant's appeal upon the application of the respondent, it became functus officio. Therefore, whether the decision of the Supreme Court was right or wrong, however defective ex-facie the said order or wrongly decided, it could not competently Re-enter nor rehear the appeal."