Can a Court Overrule Its Own Ruling on a Preliminary Objection?

CASE TITLE: FEMENE & ORS v. FRN & ANOR (2024) LPELR-61874(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST MARCH, 2024

JUSTICES: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, JCA
PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, JCA

DIVISION: ABUJA

PRACTICE AREA: JUDGMENT AND ORDER

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, delivered on the 17th of December, 2014.

The appellants, from Rivers, Bayelsa, and Delta States claimed that they were evacuated from the Bakassi Peninsula after the International Court of Justice affirmed Cameroon’s sovereignty over the area. The appellants sought compensation, claiming severe destitution due to the Nigerian government’s failure to resettle them.

Initially, the respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing the suit was non-justiciable under the Nigerian Constitution, involved native law and custom outside the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction, and was filed in the wrong venue. On April 30, 2014, the trial Court dismissed this objection, stating the appellants’ claims were compensatory and within its jurisdiction.

However, in its final judgment, the trial Court overruled its earlier decision, agreeing with the respondents that claims involving native law and custom were beyond its jurisdiction. The trial Court further held that the damage was not done by the respondent, that the ceding of the Peninsula was the act of the United Nations and the respondent had no option but to obey the orders of the United Nations. The trial Court held that in such a situation the Appellants cannot come to the Federal High Court for relief but to the Court that ceded the Peninsula to the Cameroon authorities.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1. Whether the trial Court was right in overlooking the oral testimonies of the plaintiffs/Appellants witnesses, expunging Exhibits A5 and A6, and attached no evidential value to Exhibits A1, A2, A3, A4, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, C and C1 properly admitted and marked documentary evidence.

​2. Whether the trial Court was right when it sat on appeal on its own earlier decision delivered on 30th of April, 2014 on a preliminary objection filed by the Defendants/Respondents, while delivering its final decision in December 2014.

3. Whether the trial Court was correct to require further evidence in support of those already given by the Plaintiffs/Appellants’ case based on the purported absence of such corroborating evidence.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the respondents at the trial Court and the trial Court’s ruling on the preliminary objection delivered on 30/4/2014. He submitted that it is bewildering that the respondents, in their final address, raised the same issues already decided by the trial Court in its ruling on the preliminary objection. He pointed out that even when the appellants drew the trial Court’s attention to the fact that it was functus officio on those issues, the trial Court revisited them again, which he argued was erroneous. He relied on ANYAEGBUNAM v. A.G. ANAMBRA STATE (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 532.

Learned counsel asserted that the trial Court was not faced with any exceptional circumstances allowing it to revisit its decision, citing U.B.A v. UKACHUKWU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 337) 515 at 521, paras D – H, and urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Appellants.

In response, learned Counsel for the respondents acknowledged that questions 1 and 2 in their preliminary objection were similar to questions 2 and 4 in their final written address. However, he argued that the trial Court had carefully examined the questions raised, the claims, and evidence, and formulated three questions for determination. He contended that the circumstances of the earlier decision differed from the second. He also submitted that a Court of law is inherently empowered to reverse its earlier decision made without jurisdiction, referencing BELLO v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342. He argued that the trial Court’s earlier decision was made without jurisdiction, as the Federal High Court is not vested with jurisdiction over matters of native law and custom, which were involved in the appellants’ claims before the trial Court. He referred to Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

Counsel argued that the appellants’ assertion that the current case does not fall within circumstances permitting a Court to overrule its earlier decision is misconceived. He stated that a careful study of the earlier and later positions of the trial Court shows no conflict. He added that even assuming, though not conceding, that the trial Court sat on appeal over its decision on issue 2, no miscarriage of justice occurred. This is because the trial Court did not decline jurisdiction over the appellant’s suit but proceeded to decide the case on its merits, holding that the appellants are not entitled to their claims. Counsel urged this Court to resolve the issue in favor of the Respondents.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIO:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER – REVERSAL OF DECISION: Whether the court can alter the effect of its own decision on an issue that has been previously decided by it

“It is evidently clear from the two decisions of the trial court that it summersaulted from its earlier position, while dismissing the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction, that the none of the claims of the appellants relate to native law and custom, to a completely opposite position in its judgment where it held that paragraphs 19 and 21 of the appellants’ claim were brought under native law and customs which is outside its jurisdiction. It is therefore obvious that by taking a different position in its judgment to the one it had earlier decided while dismissing the preliminary objection, the trial Court sat on appeal over its earlier decision. This, a Court of law is not allowed to do.

In DAKOLO & ORS v REWANE-DAKOLO & ORS (supra), the Supreme Court stated this principle more clearly when Galadima, JSC held as follows:

“It is trite law the Court is not allowed to alter the effect of its own decision on an issue that has been previously decided by it in the course of the same proceedings. The reversal of such decision is only on appeal. The principle is aimed at bringing an end to litigation as unsuccessful litigants are likely to re-open issues decided at later period.” Per MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol