Notifications
Clear all

FUNCTUS OFFICIO – EFFECT OF WHEN A COURT BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
434 Views
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

“In Nigerian Army vs. Iyela (2008) 18 NWLR (pt 1118) 115, the apex court held:

The position of the law is that once a Court or Tribunal delivered its final judgment in a case before it, it became functus officio with respect to that case. It has no power to reopen the case for the purpose of making corrections or changing any opinion expressed in its earlier judgment in the case. The only exception to this rule is where there is need to make minor permissible correction under the slip rule. What can be altered under the slip rule is not as to the substance of the judgment earlier delivered but limited to minor errors, such as spelling errors, typographical or mathematical errors wherein correct figures can be entered. See Berliet Nig. Ltd. v. Kachalla (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt.420) 478, Emordi v. Kwentoh (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt.433) 656, Ministry of Lagos Affairs, Mines & Power v. Akin Olugbade (1974) 11 S.C. (Reprint) 9; (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 226, Commissioner of Lands Midwest State v. Edo-Osagie (1973) 6 S.C. 155; (1973) 6 S.C. (Reprint) 112, and Umunna v. Okwurajiwe (1978) 6 & 7 S.C. 1 at 9; (1978) 6-9 S.C. (Reprint) 1.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Buhari vs. INEC & Ors (2008) 12 SC (Pt. 1)1 held:

The next issue is whether the Court of Appeal was functus officio. Functus officio ordinarily means a task performed; having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 673. The Latinism means in practice the idea that the specific duties and functions that an officer was legally empowered and charged to perform have now been wholly accomplished and thus, the officer has no further authority or legal competence based on the original commission. This is because the thing which originally had life becomes dead or moribund after the performance of the duty or function by the authority. In our context, a Judge who has decided a question brought before him is functus officio, and cannot review his decision. See also Sanusi v. Ayoola (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.265) 275; Onwuchekwa v. CCB (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 603) 409; Anyaegbunam v. Attorney-General of Anambra State (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 532; INEC v. Nnaji (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 473. A Court cannot be functus officio if it gives an anticipatory order, which is conditional to the possible implementation of the order or otherwise as in this case. This is because at the point of fulfilment, the party involved in the anticipatory order will return for a permanent relief. An order of a Court made subject to the happening of an event is not one given in total or whole and therefore cannot make the Court functus officio. In this case, the objector or objectors were given the right to raise objection on the admissibility of the documents and the Court of Appeal was perfectly in order to rule on their admissibility one way or the other. After all, the latinism of functus officio applies when the whole matter is resolved or dealt with by the Court. It will not apply where only a part of it is resolved or dealt with and a part of it is hanging. That part which was hanging in this case was the order “subject to the right of the opposing parties….” The Judge has to remove the hanger and he is not functus officio to do so. That was what Fabiyi, JCA., did and he is right in doing that. The appellant is wrong in castigating him for doing the right thing. The following cases cited by the Court are germane to the principle; and I agree with the Court: UBN Plc. v. Sparkling Breweries Ltd. (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 698) 200; Kabo Air vs. INCO Ltd. (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 816) 323; Agbi vs. Ogbe (2006) 5 S.C. (Pt. II) 129; (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65 and Dagaci of Dere vs. Dagaci of Ebwa (2006) 1 S.C. (Pt. I) 87; (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 979) 382.”

See; Citec Int’l Estate Ltd & Ors vs. Francis & Ors (2014) LPELR 22314 (SC). The lower court haven decided on an application with the same prayer involving the same parties is functus officio on the matter. That apart, the ruling referring the matter to arbitration is still subsisting and no further order is needed. See Nwokedi & Ors vs. Okugo & Ors (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt. 794) 441”. By PER E. TOBI, J.C.A in the case of

MILAN (INDUSTRIES) NIGERIA LTD VS TREVI FOUNDATIONS NIGERIA LTD LER [2019] CA/L/655/2013 https://legalpediaonline.com/milan-industries-nigeria-ltd-vs-trevi-foundations-nigeria-ltd/


   
Quote
Share: