A lawyer, S.M. Danyaro, has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court with a ₦50 million punitive fine and barred from appearing before any court in Nigeria if he fails to pay the amount within 90 days after the apex court found his application seeking a review of its final judgment to be a gross abuse of court process.
The landmark ruling, delivered by a unanimous five-member panel of the Supreme Court, has reignited public debate over the limits of Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 and reaffirmed the finality of the court’s decisions.
The controversy stemmed from an application filed by Danyaro on behalf of former Emir of Gwandu, Alhaji AlMustapha Haruna Jokolo, asking the apex court to set aside its June 4, 2025 judgment in Suit No. SC/266/2017: Governor of Kebbi State & 12 Others v. Alhaji AlMustapha Haruna Jokolo & Another.
Filed on October 2, 2025, the application urged the Supreme Court to nullify its earlier judgment on grounds of alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of the law and constitutional violations. It also sought the constitution of a fresh panel to hear the appeal afresh.
Jokolo, through his counsel, argued that the judgment had been “procured by fraud,” alleging that the court was misled on the interpretation of Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 21, Laws of Kebbi State, 1996.
He further contended that the judgment subordinated justice to “absurdity” and amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights to fair hearing and access to justice.
The respondents, including the Governor of Kebbi State, the Attorney General, the Kebbi State Council of Chiefs, the Gwandu Emirate Council and members of the council, opposed the application through their counsel, Yakubu Maikyau, SAN.
They argued that the motion was not aimed at correcting any clerical error or accidental slip as contemplated under the Supreme Court’s slip rule but was instead an impermissible attempt to reopen and rehear a matter that had already been conclusively determined.
According to the respondents, the Supreme Court’s judgments are final and binding, with no constitutional or statutory provision empowering the court to revisit the merits of its own decisions. They relied on established judicial authorities, including Adigun v. Attorney-General of Oyo State and Minister of Lagos Affairs, Mines & Power v. Chief Akin Olugbade, to contend that such applications constitute an abuse of court process.
Although the panel was presided over by Justice Uwani Musa Abba-Aji, the lead judgment was delivered on May 15 by Justice Jamilu Tukur.
Justice Tukur held that Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules was never intended to provide dissatisfied litigants with an opportunity to relitigate matters already decided.
“It is not, and has never been, a gateway for rearguing issues already determined, nor does it empower this Court to revisit the substance of its judgment under any guise.
“To construe it otherwise would be to distort its clear purpose and undermine the disciplined structure of appellate adjudication.”
Citing the earlier decision in Igwe v. Kalu (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 435, the court stressed that the rule is strictly limited to correcting clerical mistakes, accidental slips or omissions made while recording judgments.
The apex court held that Jokolo’s application failed to disclose any exceptional circumstance capable of warranting interference with its earlier judgment.
Emphasising the constitutional role of the Supreme Court as the nation’s court of last resort, Justice Tukur declared:
“The authority of this Court rests on the certainty and conclusiveness of its decisions.
“Once a judgment has been delivered, it marks the end of the judicial journey. There is no higher forum, no further appeal, and no mechanism for revisiting the merits of the case.
“To allow parties to return under the pretext of correcting errors, when in truth they seek to relitigate, would erode the finality that gives this very Court its authority and would plunge the legal system into uncertainty.”
The court further warned that Order 20 Rule 4 cannot be used by litigants dissatisfied with the reasoning or outcome of a judgment.
“It must therefore be clearly understood that Order 20 Rule 4 is not a tool for litigants to express dissatisfaction with the reasoning or outcome of a decision.
“It is a limited housekeeping provision, nothing more. The Supreme Court is not a forum for endless litigation. It is the court of last resort, whose pronouncements bring disputes to a definitive close.
“Any attempt to convert this rule into an avenue for rehearing an appeal is not only legally untenable but strikes at the very foundation of the Court’s role as the ultimate and final arbiter of justice.”
In a strongly worded judgment, the court described the application as a direct assault on its authority and institutional integrity.
“It betrays not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional role of the Supreme Court, but also a disturbing lack of respect for the finality of its decisions.
“This is not a mere procedural misstep or an overzealous argument. It is a direct invitation to this Court to repudiate its own authority and to descend into a cycle of endless self-review.”
The justices also rejected the request for a differently constituted panel to rehear the appeal.
“The idea that this Court can, upon request, assemble a different panel to reconsider and potentially overturn its own decision is not only alien to our legal system but deeply offensive to the structure of appellate justice.
“If such a practice were to be entertained, there would be no end to litigation, no certainty in judicial outcomes, and no respect for the hierarchy of courts.”
The court expressed concern over what it described as an emerging trend of lawyers filing speculative applications before the apex court without any legal basis.
“There appears to be an emerging culture where clearly untenable applications are filed, not out of any genuine legal basis, but in the hope that persistence might yield a different outcome.
“The Supreme Court is not an experimental arena for speculative litigation. It is the apex judicial institution whose processes must be approached with the utmost seriousness, restraint, and respect.”
The panel stressed that the court’s time is a national resource that must not be wasted on frivolous applications.
“It cannot be overemphasised that the time of the Supreme Court is an invaluable national resource, reserved for the resolution of matters of the highest legal and constitutional importance.
“It must not be squandered on frivolous, speculative, or procedurally incompetent applications or appeals that serve no purpose other than to obstruct the administration of justice.”
The apex court reserved its harshest criticism for counsel to the applicant, holding that his conduct fell below the standards expected of members of the legal profession.
“Counsel, as an officer in the temple of justice, is under a solemn duty to uphold the law, act with candour, and refrain from advancing positions that are plainly unsustainable.
“The present application, which seeks to reopen a concluded matter under the guise of a review, is a clear departure from these professional obligations and constitutes an abuse of the process of this Court.
“Such conduct cannot be overlooked, as it erodes the dignity of the Court and undermines the integrity of the legal profession.”
The court subsequently dismissed the application in its entirety and reaffirmed the validity of its June 4, 2025 judgment.
“The application is devoid of any merit and constitutes a gross abuse of the process of this Court. It is hereby dismissed.
“The judgment of this Court delivered on 4th June 2025 in Appeal No. SC/266/2017 remains final, subsisting, and binding on all parties.”
As punishment, the court ordered Danyaro to personally pay a punitive cost of ₦50 million within 90 days, warning that failure to comply would automatically strip him of the right of audience before any court in Nigeria until the penalty is paid.
The decision was unanimously endorsed by Justices Ibrahim Saulawa, Emmanuel Agim and Chioma Nwosu-Iheme.
The ruling further reinforces the enduring principle famously articulated by late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa in Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989):
“We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.”
