Wema Bank Plc v. Alhaji Asani Awotunde & Ors (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, Coram Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JCA (as he then was), Sidi Dauda Bage, JCA (as he then was) and Modupe Fasanmi, JCA delivered on the 23rd day of February, 2010 refusing the appellant’s motion seeking leave to amend the notice of appeal dated 23rd August 2006 and striking out the said notice of appeal for being incurably defective and incompetent having been signed in the name of Musibau Adetunbi & Co. who is not a legal practitioner under the Legal Practitioner’s Act.

The crux of the appellant’s case is that it commenced its appeal before the court below by a notice of appeal dated 23rd day of August 2006 signed by and in the name of Musibau Adetunbi & Co., who is not a legal practitioner on the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria. Realizing the defect in the said notice of appeal, the appellant filed a motion on notice dated 27th day of October, 2009 wherein it sought to amend the defective notice of appeal by seeking the following reliefs before the court below:

1. An order of this honourable court granting the appellant/applicant leave to amend its notice of appeal filed on the 23/08/2006 before this honourable court as contained in the schedule of amendment attached to this motion.
2. An order of this honourable court to deem as properly filed and served the amended notice of appeal already filed and served.

And for such further or other orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The court below refused to grant the reliefs sought in the appellant’s motion on notice and struck out the appeal relying on this court’s decision in Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 19 WRN 1.

The amended appellant’s brief was filed by Ire W. Olusesi-Egert (Mrs.) while the amended 1st respondent’s brief was filed by Kayode Omosehin. The 2nd respondent’s brief was filed by Oluwaseye Afolabi, the 3rd respondent’s brief was settled by Adeola Adedipe, SAN and the 4th respondent’s brief was filed by E.O. Adekwu, SAN.

The main question in my view here is:

Whether this court is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis and cannot except special circumstances is shown to depart from its views as expressed in Okafor v. Nweke and other appeals reviewing the same legal point and came to the same legal conclusion.

What this means is that I will not deign to go into the arguments whether in this case the notice of appeal was properly filed by a legal firm. That issue had been settled by Okafor v. Nweke (supra) and other appeals in this court ad nauseum.

My Lords, besides praying that this court should set aside the decision of the court below, the appellant is also praying this court to consequently reverse or overrule its decision in Okafor v. Nweke (supra) for being per-incuriam.

I will decide this appeal on the sole issue as identified above.

At the hearing of this appeal, learned appellant’s counsel sought leave and was granted same to argue a fresh issue not raised at the court below. There was no objection by any of the respondents’ counsel. Therefore, any argument relating to the incompetence of the new issue raised by the appellant is unwarranted and hereby ignored as irrelevant to this appeal.

Learned appellant’s counsel submitted that the main issue in this appeal is the call of this court to review its ratio decidendi in Okafor v. Nweke (supra). Counsel argued that the Supreme Court has the vires to depart from and overrule its previous decisions where it is shown that such decisions are (1) Given per incuriam (2) Constitutes vehicles of injustice and (3) Clearly erroneous in law.

Counsel cited Odi v. Osafile (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 17; Cardoso v. Daniel (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 20) 1, A-G., Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187 at 266 para E – G, Veepee Ind Ltd v. Cocoa Ind. (2008) 37 WRN 145, Bucknor – Macleans & Anor v. Inlaks Ltd (1980) NSCC 232 at 243 lines 41 -50 in aid of the contention that this court can set aside its own reasoning where it was made per incuriam, or the decision has occasioned miscarriage of justice being contrary to public policy. Learned counsel went on to rehash a plethora of authorities pre and after on this point. They include Oketade v. Adewumi (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 63, Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church Lagos Area II v. Rahman Akindele(1967) NSCC 117.