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.”
The Supreme Court becomes functus officio once it has decided a matter. Its decision cannot be reviewed. They are final. The inherent powers conferred on this court by Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules empowers this court, notwithstanding the finality of its judgments in justifiable cases to revisit a judgment already delivered for the purpose of correction in cases of clerical mistakes, or accidental slips or to amend the judgment in cases where the error is of a material nature that substantially affects the decision. The inherent powers enable the court to vary the judgment when the need arises so as to give the effect to its meaning or intention. On no account should the judgment be varied to represent what the court never decided or grant reliefs that were not granted. Neither can the judgment be rewritten. See:
Ezeoke v. Nwagbo (1988) NWLR (Pt. 72) p.616
Adigun & Ors. v. A-G, Oyo State (1987) Vol. 18 (Pt. i) NSCC p.545
Udeze v. Chideke (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) p. 141
Chukwuka v. Ezulike (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) p. 892.
The issue for determination is:
Whether this court acting under Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules (the slip Rule) can correct accidental slips, errors, which occurred in the addition/summation of the several heads of monetary awards made by the two courts below and affirmed by this court.
It would be most important that relevant extracts from the judgment of this court is reproduced and I shall start from page 51 of the judgment, it reads:
The trial High Court made the following monetary awards;
- Leyland generator 75KVA N4,375,000.00
- CD 6 Sawmill Machine with Saw doctor and rails N3,950,000.00
- 20 inches planning machine N380,000.00
- Small circular with 7 H.P. Electric Motor N220,000.00
- One complete Mechanical Tools N22,000.00
- Cost of rebuilding the generator house N75,000.00
- Cost of transporting C.D. from Ibadan in Oyo State to Ido-Ekiti in Ekiti State N50,000.00
- Loss of cash in hand N175,000.00
- Cost of retaining the equipments by the 1st and 2nd respondents N18,250,000.00
- For humiliating dehumanizing and torturing the plaintiff on 13/8/97 N2,500,000.00
- For unlawful entry into the Plaintiff’s sawmill on the 13/8/97 N100,000.00
A total of N30,273,000.00 (Thirty Million, Two Hundred and Seventy-Three Thousand Naira). After the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal it proceeded to reduce the monetary awards.
This is what the Court of Appeal had to say:
“I hereby hold that on the authority of Artra Ind. (Nig.) Ltd v. NBCI (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 546) p.358 the award of N100,000 for trespass made by the learned trial judge in addition to the awards under items 1 to 7 as to cost of sawmill machines removed from the 1st respondents sawmill is hereby set aside on the ground that the said N100,000.00 was awarded in error of law.”
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 says that the judgment sum is N30,795,070.00 (Thirty Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety-Three Thousand, Seventy Naira) while Professor T. Osipitan, SAN says its N20,925,000.00 (Twenty Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Naira). The error to be corrected is the addition/summation of the several heads of damages. It becomes clear after examining the extracts from the judgment of this court, that the High Court entered judgment for the applicant in excess of N30m (Thirty Million Naira). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with reduction of N100,000.00 and allowed the cross appeal.
The judgment sum was increased by N117,000.00. The judgment sum awarded by the Court of Appeal is also in excess of N30m (Thirty Million Naira).
The observation by this court that the judgment sum awarded by the Court of Appeal is N20,825,000.00 (Twenty Million, Hine Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Naira) is clearly an error, as N100,000 subtracted from N30,273,000.00 (Thirty Million, Two Hundred and Seventy-Three Thousand Naira) is not N20,925,000.00 (Twenty Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Naira).
To my mind the error that has arisen in the instant matter is obvious on the Record and it is governed by the principle of slip rule that can easily be corrected under the inherent jurisdiction of this court. Before I do that, I must observe that it is a fact that the trial High Court gave judgment in favour of the applicant in excess of N30m (Thirty Million Naira). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal but made an error in calculating the judgment sum. Whatever doubts about the correct judgment sum are put to rest by the order of this court dismissing the appeal. It in effect means that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. An order of this court is now more than necessary so that the true and full meaning may be given to the judgment of this court to remove once and for all time all doubts as to the correct figure the applicants are entitled to. Accordingly the observation of this court in the leading judgment that:
“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. N20,925,000.00 (Twenty Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Naira) and the sum awarded in the cross-appeal.”
is hereby deleted.
The sum of N30,793,070 (Thirty Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety-Three Thousand and Seventy Naira) awarded by the Court of Appeal in favour of the applicants, judgment creditors, affirmed by this court is the correct judgment sum.
Application granted. No order on costs.
SC.166/2003(R)