Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Min. of Lagos, Mines & Power Vs. Akin-Olugbade (1974) CLR 11(d) (SC)

Judgement delivered on November 8th 1974

Brief

  • Practice and procedure
  • Review of previous decision by Supreme Court
  • Order 7 Rule 29 Supreme Court rules

Facts

On June 22, 1974, three motions were filed, of which one was for a stay of execution of that judgment, although counsel for the applicants offered to abandon when the matter came before us on October 7, 1974, on the ground that it had been overtaken by events. The relevant prayers in the remaining two motions, one on behalf of the respondents in the Onigbongbo Community Case and the other on behalf of Chief F.R.A. Williams who was counsel for the Egba Refugees (1867) Descendants Community at all material stages in the case up to the compromise consent Judgment in 1972, are for an order:-

  • i.
    to review the decision of this Honourable Court delivered in the above-matter on Friday, 21st June 1974, pursuant to the provisions of Order VII rule 29 of the Supreme Court Rules 1961 in the manner and on the grounds set forth in Schedule 1 to this Motion on Notice;
  • ii.
    to clarify, determine or direct whether the above-named Applicants are entitled as co-owners of land vested in the Respondents under the Terms of Settlement in suit No. S.C. 369/1970 (High Court No. HK/11/59) by virtue of the fact that they are descendants of Egba Refugees;
  • iii.
    to clarify, determine or direct whether the said Applicants are entitled to the amount of N4,400-00 ordered to be paid to the Applicants if for their own benefit or for the use of the Egba Refugees; and
  • iv.
    such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make.

When learned counsel for the respondents rose to object on the ground that the Court had no Jurisdiction to entertain the motions, we were of the opinion that, as this is not an appeal, we should allow the applicant to show that we have jurisdiction to hear the motions. With our permission, learned counsel submitted that there are the following two instances in which the court is entitled to review its own previous decision:-

  • a.
    where the order of the Court has not been drawn up at the time of the application for a review, and
  • b.
    where the decision sought to be reviewed was given without jurisdiction.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the Supreme Court can review its own judgment once...
    Read More