CASE TITLE: JOKOLO v. GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE & ORS (2026) LPELR-84068(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH MAY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This is a ruling on a post-judgment application seeking to review and set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court.
FACTS:
The facts and circumstances surrounding the instant application are that the applicant was deposed by the 1st Respondent as the 19th Emir of Gwandu, Kebbi State in 2005. The Applicant challenged his deposition at the Kebbi State High Court, which gave judgment in his favour. The Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Judicial Division against the decision of the Kebbi State High Court. At the end of the hearing of the appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial High Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Respondents appealed to the Supreme Court, whereupon, the Court in a majority decision (coram: Agim, Nwosu-Iheme and Tukur, JJSC), upheld the Respondents’ cross appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court as well as the Court of Appeal. The minority decisions of, Abba Aji and Saulawa, JJSC, dismissed the Respondents’ cross appeal and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The applicant subsequently brought a post-judgment application pursuant to Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024, Sections 6(6)(b) and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby seeking to review and set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on June 4, 2025 in Appeal No. SC/266/2017. The motion was anchored on the certain grounds including that the judgment of the Court was procured by a fraud upon the Court, stemming from the respondents’ misrepresentation of Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment & Deposition) Law, Cap, 21, Laws of Kebbi State, 1996. The motion was supported with an affidavit of 14 paragraphs, of which paragraph 9 has sub-paragraphs A-H, and a written address. In response, the learned counsel for the 1st – 13th respondents filed a counter affidavit of 29 paragraphs and a written address on 24/10/2025.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Applicant framed the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the extrinsic misrepresentation of Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 21, Laws of Kebbi State, 1996 and wrong judicial authorities by the Respondents as presented to and relied upon by this Honourable Court, in Suit No. SC/266/2017, constitutes a misrepresentation amounting to fraud on the Court, thus warranting the setting aside of the judgment notwithstanding the principle of finality.
2. Whether this Honourable Court in Suit No. SC/266/2017, was right in upholding, on the basis of stare decisis, a precedent it expressly described as “absurd,” when such adherence resulted in a per incuriam decision that subordinated justice to an unreasonable and illogical interpretation of Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap, 21, Laws of Kebbi State, 1996.
3. Whether the judgment of this Honourable Court in Suit No. SC/266/2017, having relied on an inapplicable statutory provision due to the misrepresentation of the Respondents, thereby ousted the Applicant’s access to Court and denied him fair hearing, in breach of Sections 6(6)(b) and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
DECISION/HELD:
The application was dismissed in the strongest terms possible with costs of 50million Naira awarded against counsel personally.
RATIOS:
- COURT- SUPREME COURT: Whether a party can apply to the Supreme Court to constitute another panel to re-hear an appeal already conclusively determined
- COURT- SUPREME COURT: Finality of the decision of the Supreme Court
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER- REVIEW OF JUDGMENT: Whether the Supreme Court has power to review its judgment once delivered
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER- SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT/ORDER: Whether a party can relabel arguments already responded to during a hearing as “fraudulent” in order to have the judgment set aside
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER- DUTY OF COUNSEL: Duty of Counsel as a minister in the temple of justice and an officer of the Court
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
