By Victor Sunday
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Introduction
Every so often, the Supreme Court of Nigeria hands down a ruling that is not just about the parties before it. That happened on May 15, 2026, when a five-member panel led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji fined a lawyer the princely sum of ₦50 million for what the court called a “frivolous” application to reopen a case it had already decided.
Pay within 90 days, the court warned, or lose your right of audience in every courtroom in the country which was a kind of professional death sentence dressed up as a costs order and it has, quite understandably, pushed a fairly obscure procedural provision into the centre of public legal discourse.
The provision in question is Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024, and the question everyone in the profession is now asking, half in curiosity and half in self-preservation, is just how far a lawyer can stretch it before the stretching becomes sanctionable. This piece is an attempt at a forensic dissection of that provision on the Court’s own finality.
What Does Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules Say?
Strip away the drama and Order 20 Rule 4 is, on its face, a fairly modest piece of drafting. It provides, in essence, that the Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.
It is important to state that there is no grand machinery in there for reopening cases, no back door built in for an appeal against the apex court’s own decisions. In doctrinal terms, this is what practitioners call the SLIP RULE as seen in cases like Agwunedu v. Onwumere (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 321) 375, Jegede v. Akande (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1455) 228. The rule is meant to be a narrow, surgical instrument rather than a lever.
It has been described as a narrow and exceptional power that allows a court to correct minor, unintentional errors in its judgment or order without reopening or rehearing the case and not an avenue to alter the substance of a decision but merely to make the judgment effective in the form the court intended. Put plainly, if a judge writes “the appellant” when the record clearly shows they meant “the respondent,” that is a slip. If a date has been transposed, that is a slip. If the figure awarded does not match the sum the ratio decidendi actually supports, that too is a slip. What the rule was never built for is a litigant who simply dislikes the outcome and wants a second bite at the cherry however cleverly the application is dressed up to look procedural rather than substantive.
The underlying dispute in the Danyaro matter is a two-decade-old chieftaincy fight over the Gwandu Emirate stool in Kebbi State and it is worth sketching the background because the shape of the abuse only becomes visible against it. Jokolo, the deposed 19th Emir, had spent years litigating his removal, and on June 4, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a split three-to-two judgment affirming that his successor, Muhammadu Iliyasu Bashar, was the rightful Emir, largely on the technical ground that Jokolo had bypassed a mandatory pre-litigation complaint to the state governor.
Rather than accept that as the end of the road, Danyaro filed a motion on October 2, 2025, asking the Court to set aside its own judgment on the ground that it had been “procured by fraud” through the misrepresentation of Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment & Deposition) Law, and asking, in effect, for a fresh panel to rehear the appeal in its entirety. That is not a slip-rule application in any recognizable sense. It is a full-throated attempt at re-adjudication wearing the slip rule as a costume and the respondents, represented by Yakubu Maikyau, SAN, called it out for exactly that, arguing that it was an impermissible attempt to review a final Supreme Court decision rather than correct a clerical error under Order 20 Rule 4. The Court agreed, unanimously and without a great deal of patience for the dressing-up exercise.
Delivering the lead ruling, Justice Jamilu Tukur was unambiguous about where the rule’s fence actually sits. He held that Order 20 Rule 4 is a narrow procedural provision designed solely to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the Court’s judgments, not to reopen or reconsider them, and that its scope is strictly confined to the correction of clerical mistakes, accidental slips, or omissions that may have occurred in the process of recording the Court’s decision.
This is where the forensic part of the exercise matters most, because the Court is drawing a distinction that sounds simple in the abstract but is actually quite technical in application i.e, the difference between error in expression and error in substance. A genuine slip-rule application interrogates the FORM a judgment has taken and asks: does the written order actually say what the bench decided? A disguised review application, by contrast, interrogates the MERITS and asks: was the decision correct in the first place, and should it have gone the other way? Order 20 Rule 4 only has jurisdiction over the former question. The moment an application asks the Court to reconsider evidence, reweigh legal argument, or entertain a fresh allegation of fraud going to the very heart of the decision, it has walked off the rule’s territory entirely, regardless of what caption has been stapled to the front page of the motion paper.
None of this reasoning was invented on the spot for Danyaro’s benefit. The panel anchored itself in a lineage of authority that has said, in various words, essentially the same thing for decades. Adigun v. A.G. Oyo State (1987) 4 SC and Minister of Lagos Affairs, Mines & Power & Anor v. Chief Akin Olugbade (1974) 11 SC were cited by the respondents to demonstrate that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected such invitations as an abuse of court process. this is not a new judicial posture, but an old and thoroughly settled one. Igwe v. Kalu (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 435 was the specific authority the Court leaned on for the proposition that the slip rule cannot be stretched into a substantive review mechanism, and the panel found that the circumstances presented were not exceptional and did not detract from or undermine the efficacy of the judgment.
What Happens to Courage to Approach the Supreme Court in Adegoke Motors v. Adesanya?
And, almost inevitably in any Nigerian discussion of finality, Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, at 274–275, made its appearance. It was there that the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa delivered the words every Nigerian lawyer eventually learns by heart: “We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short-sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions. Similarly the court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be over-ruled. This court has the power to over-rule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error.”
That last piece of the dictum is worth pausing on, because it is precisely the language a lawyer in Danyaro’s position might be tempted to lean on. If the Supreme Court itself says it will not persevere in error, why should Order 20 Rule 4 stand in the way of correcting one?
The answer is that Oputa’s self-correcting power and Order 20 Rule 4’s slip-rule power are aimed at two entirely different targets and the difference between them is exactly the line the Danyaro panel was defending. The power to overrule itself that Oputa describes belongs to the doctrine of precedent not to the finality of any single concluded dispute. When the Court overrules itself, it does so in a later, different case, declining to follow a principle of law it had earlier laid down, because that principle has come to be seen as wrongly decided. That is prospective correction but it does not reopen or unwind the specific judgment, between the specific parties, in the case where the principle first appeared.
Adegoke Motors and Adesanya remain bound by the outcome of Adegoke Motors and Adesanya even if some later panel, in some unrelated matter, decides that a proposition from that case should no longer be followed. Order 20 Rule 4 is answering an altogether different question. It is not whether a legal principle should survive going forward but whether this judgment, in this case, between these parties can be reopened because one side is convinced it is wrong.
To that question, Nigerian procedure answers no, almost absolutely, save for the narrow slip-rule exception. Once a judgment is delivered, the Court becomes functus officio in respect of that dispute; its work there is done, and no amount of conviction on counsel’s part revives its seisin over the merits. Seen this way, Danyaro’s application was not simply a review application wearing slip-rule clothing. It was an attempt to borrow a systemic power i.e, the Court’s authority to correct the law it makes over time, and apply it individually to unmake a judgment already made.
Drawing all of this together, the elasticity of Order 20 Rule 4 has a fairly clear ceiling once you trace it through the case law rather than the bare text. The rule comfortably stretches to cover typographical, arithmetical, or clerical errors in the judgment as recorded, to omissions in the order that fail to capture what the Court actually decided and to genuine ambiguities that need clarification before the judgment can be enforced in the form the bench intended.
Order 20 Rule 4 should be read for what it actually says, not for what a desperate client wishes it meant. It is a scalpel for typographical and recording precision not a lever for reopening a case that has already run its full course through the judicial hierarchy. Stretch it too far, and the Court’s response, as this case has now shown in the most vivid terms available, can be measured not just in dismissed applications, but in millions of naira and a career placed squarely on the line.
Victor Sunday is a legal writer, orator and public affairs analyst. He can be reached at victorsundayonwukwe@gmail.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
