The Supreme Court of Nigeria is one of the country’s key policy-making institutions, constantly under the spotlight, particularly with the nomination of Justice Kudirat Motonmori Kekere-Ekun as Chief Justice of Nigeria.
According to the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the decisions of the apex court are final and binding across the country.
These decisions are orally pronounced by the respective justices of the apex court, who sit in a panel with one among them presiding.
The strength of a Supreme Court decision is such that all other courts must align with its reasoning in reaching a conclusion on any subject matter brought before them.
On June 8, 2013, Justice Kekere-Ekun reached a milestone when she was promoted to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, where she has since made landmark pronouncements that have influenced justice in several ways.
Eleven years down the line, she has sat on panels as well as presided over her fellow judges in passing verdicts on numerous matters before them.
On August 16, 2024, the National Judicial Council (NJC), presided over by the outgoing CJN, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, recommended Kekere-Ekun to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for appointment as his successor, subject to presidential and legislative approval and screening.
Below is a list of five decisions pronounced by Kekere-Ekun at the Supreme Court bench, which have been cited by the National Industrial Court:
Courts must rely on their records
In a case between the Peoples Democratic Party and another against Barrister Sopuluchukwu E. Ezeonwuka & another (2017), Kekere-Ekun held that “in order to do substantial justice between the parties, the Court is entitled to look at its file or record and make use of the contents.”
This implies that courts are expected to rely on their records (or court files) in reaching a decision. The court’s file usually contains all documents and exhibits associated with a particular case.
Affected parties can sue
In a 2019 case between the Centre for Oil Pollution Watch and NNPC, Kekere-Ekun held that a party directly affected by development can approach the court for redress.
In that case, she held that the appellant, by its pleadings, had shown that some of its members and the general public were affected by the destruction of marine life, water, streams/rivers occasioned by the alleged negligence of the defendant.
“I am satisfied that it has shown sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit to clothe it with the necessary standing to sue. It is for these and the more elaborate reasons ably advanced in the lead judgment that I would allow this appeal,” she stated in a concurring judgment.
The burden of proof rests on the claimant
In a 2018 case, Kekere-Ekun held that where a claimant seeks declaratory reliefs, the burden is on him or her to prove entitlement to those reliefs on the strength of their own case.
“A declaratory relief will not be granted, even on an admission. The claimant is also not entitled to rely on the weakness of the defense, if any. It has been held that the rationale for this position of the law is that a claim for declaratory rights calls for the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers in favour of the claimant. He must therefore place sufficient material before the Court to enable it to exercise such discretion in his favour,” she said.
Courts can quash their own judgments
Kekere-Ekun held in a matter brought by Citec Intl Estate Ltd that the most obvious condition for setting aside a judgment is fraud when the judgment is obtained by fraudulent representation to the court.
In the case of Citec Intl Estate Ltd and another against Josiah Oluwile Francis and another, Justice Kekere-Ekun states the exceptions as follows:
“The Supreme Court and any other superior court of record possess inherent power to set aside their judgments in appropriate cases, including when the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit when the court was misled into giving judgment under the mistaken belief that the parties had consented to it, or where the judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction.”
It’s a nullity for a Court to preside over matters it lacks jurisdiction
“The settled position of the law is that the issue of jurisdiction, being so fundamental to the court’s power to adjudicate, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even before this court. It can be raised orally. It can also be raised suo motu by the court. This is because, no matter how well the proceedings are conducted or how erudite the judgment arising therefrom, it all amounts to a nullity where the court lacks jurisdiction,” Kekere-Ekun, held in the case of Buremoh versus Akande [2017].
