Enterprises Bank Limited V. Deaconess Florence Bose Aroso & Ors (2015)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

This is an application by the applicants judgment creditor brought under Section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution and Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules praying this court for an order to correct some error arising from accidental slip in the summation of the facts of the case in the judgment of this court delivered on Friday the 12th day of April, 2013 so as to give full effect to the intention of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal of the respondent judgment debtor.

The application is supported by a 22 paragraph affidavit, deposed to by Chief Deji Olatunji, the 2nd applicant judgment creditor. Annexed to it are documents marked exhibits A, B, C, D and E. A written address was filed in support of the application.

In opposing the application the respondent relied on a counter-affidavit and further affidavit filed on the 23rd of December, 2013 and 16th of September, 2014 respectively. A written address was filed opposing the application.

The applicants’ judgment creditors’ as plaintiff sued the respondent judgment debtor for declarations, general and special damages on several heads. The learned trial judge entered judgment for the applicants in the sum of N30,273,000.00 (Thirty Million, Two Hundred and Seventy Three Thousand Naira). The appeal by the respondent judgment debtor was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and entered judgment for N30,290,000.00 in favour of the judgment creditor applicant. On further appeal to this court, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed. A problem arose, though in the body of the judgment of this court, when it was said:

“The above in effect means that the judgment sum as pronounced by the Court of Appeal is made up of sums under items 8, 9, 10 above i.e. 20,925,000.00 (Twenty Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Naira) and the sum awarded in the cross-appeal”

Chief A. Awomolo, SAN learned counsel for the applicant judgment creditor observed that deleting the above will give meaning to the judgment of this court, contending that if done the judgment would not be altered. He urged this court to grant the application as prayed.

Opposing the application, Professor T. Osipitan, SAN observed that if the application is granted it would amount to this court rewriting the judgment. He urged this court to dismiss the application.

Section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution states that:

“6(6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section –

(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law.

Inherent powers of a court are a product of the Constitution and the court itself in its quest for substantial justice thereby ensuring that the streams of justice remain pure: for example the courts have inherent powers to dismiss an action which is an abuse of the process of court.

Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules confers on this court inherent jurisdiction to correct errors and slips that occur in its judgment and order. It reads:

“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 and substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted.”