Supreme Court refuses Stanbic IBTC Bank request to set aside N2.5bn judgment

Peter Fowoyo, Lagos

A bid by Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc to have the Supreme Court set aside a N2.5 judgment delivered against the bank has hit the rocks.

The five – man panel comprising Justices Musa Muhammad, John Okoro, Amiru Sanusi, Paul Galinje and Uwani Abba Aji, unanimously agreed that the bank’s application to set aside the judgment of the court lacks merit and a vexation of the court. The apex court therefore, awarded a cost of N500, 000 against the bank.

A Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos had in a judgment several years ago ordered the bank to pay the sum of N2.5 billion to Patrick Akinkuotu and his firm. But, dissatisfied with the ruling, the bank appealed to the Court of Appeal and also lost before approaching the Supreme Court, which also decided against the bank.

The bank’s lawyers, O. Ayanlaja (SAN) and Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) had approached the apex court on January 18 asking that the Supreme Court to set aside the appellate court ruling on the basis that the appeal be set down for rehearing on its merits.

They argued several grounds for the relief sought to include, that the court reached its decision without a consideration of its brief of argument at the lower court on September 10, 2011 on the ground that the brief was not the exact replica of exhibit AA1 as ordered by the lower court on September 14, 2011 and that the applicant did not seek leave of the court below to file additional grounds 4 and 5 was reached in oversight of the order of the court below granted on July 5, 2011.

However, the respondents’ lawyer, Chief Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN) presented their written addresses dated and filed on April 23, 2019 and for determination formulated an issue, whether the applicant has established that there are special or exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the judgment delivered by the court on January 18, 2019 in appeal No SC./535/2013?

Fagbohungbe (SAN) submitted that the Supreme Court cannot set aside its decision “as decided in Skenconsult Ltd vs Ukey(1981)1 SC 6, Okafor and others vs A. G; Anambra state and others (1991) 6 NWLR (PT.206)659.

He further added that by Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court rules and the case of Nigerian Army vs Major Jacob Iyela (2008) LPELR – 2014(SC), the apex court cannot set or vary its judgment after delivery since it would have become functus officio.

“Furthermore, that by Order 2, Rule 29 (1) of the Supreme Court rules, the applicant’s application is incompetent having taken steps by paying N500, 000 costs to the respondents. In the same vein, that the application is an abuse of court process,” the counsel added.

The five – man panel of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that although, there are instances where the Supreme Court can reverse itself, it is not in the instant case.

Delivering the lead judgment in dismissing the application, Justice Uwani Musa Abba Aji, said: “I cannot but fully agree with the submission of the learned counsel to the respondents that this application is frivolous, baseless, scandalous and contemptuous to be dismissed.

“There is a synergy of concurrence in reasoning and decisions from the trial court upward that this case was decided on its merits and smacks of any oversight or miscarriage of justice, thus cannot be reviewed and therefore, does not fall within the genre and the circumstances of judgments to be set aside.

“In a proceeding which is ab initio a nullity, nothing can be set aside out of it as there is nothing legally binding in it. One cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand; it will certainly collapse. “