Supreme Court

These two cases were predicated on the powers specially vested on the Supreme Court under the Rules of the Supreme Court to sit in chambers to dismiss an appeal either on its own motion or upon the application by the respondent. And the said Rules having been made pursuant to section 216 of the 1979 Constitution are not unconstitutional and indeed made to achieve the very fair hearing guaranteed in section 33 of the 1979 Constitution. Even this authority of the Supreme Court to sit in chambers is limited in scope, and restricted only to non-contentions applications or circumstances. Once there is an indication, on good cause, that the order sought to be made is contested, the matter has to be taken in open court.

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.