newoal
Understanding the Principles Relating to Clarification of Judgments in Nigeria
When a court delivers a judgment, one might assume the matter is settled. Yet in practice, clarity can be just as important as the decision itself. Courts often face situations where a judgment or order is ambiguous, contains clerical errors, or fails to accurately reflect the court’s intention.
In Nigeria’s justice system, judgments are intended to speak with finality, but there are frequent instances where the meaning, scope, or enforceability of a decision becomes unclear. This ambiguity can create significant challenges: lawyers, litigants, and even enforcement agencies may find themselves grappling not with the outcome of a case, but with understanding what the judgment actually entails.
Such situations underscore the critical importance of the principles governing the clarification of judgments. These principles provide the legal framework through which courts can rectify errors, resolve ambiguities, and ensure that their rulings are precise and actionable. Understanding and applying these principles is essential not only for the proper administration of justice but also for safeguarding the rights and interests of all parties involved.
In this article, we explore the rules, scope, and judicial approaches that guide the clarification of judgments in Nigeria, highlighting why clarity in judicial pronouncements is as vital as the decisions themselves.
Meaning and Nature of a Judgment
A judgment is the court’s final determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties. Although the Nigerian Constitution does not define “judgment,” it defines a court’s “decision” to include judgments, decrees, and orders. Under Nigerian law, a valid judgment must be clear, complete, certain, delivered in open court, signed by the presiding judge, and issued in writing within 90 days after final addresses, as required by Section 294(1) of the Constitution. A delay beyond 90 days does not automatically nullify the judgment unless it causes a miscarriage of justice under Section 294(5). Once delivered, a judgment is final and binding, subject only to appeal, and the court becomes functus officio, unable to revisit issues already decided.
Clarifying a Judgment: What the Law Actually Permits
In Nigeria, there is no specific law that gives courts an express power to “clarify” their judgments after delivery. Once a court delivers its decision, it generally becomes functus officio, meaning it has performed its function and can no longer revisit the case. However, in practice, courts sometimes face situations where a judgment or order is ambiguous, contains a clerical error, or fails to accurately express the intention of the court.
To prevent injustice in such cases, the courts have developed a limited power drawn from their inherent jurisdiction and reinforced by the slip rule in the Rules of Court, to correct or explain such judgments.
Scope of the Slip Rule
The slip rule represents 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. This power is not an avenue to alter the substance of a decision[1] but merely to make the judgment effective in the form the court intended.
For instance, Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 provides 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.” A judgement or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the court decided nor shall the operative and substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted.
Similar provisions exist under Order 23 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021.
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, have expressly preserved a narrow window for correction or interpretation to ensure justice and clarity. Order 47 Rules 22–25, the Court is expressly empowered to rescind, vary, or clarify its orders or judgments either suo motu or upon the application of an affected party.
Rule 22 – Power to Rescind, Vary, etc.
(1) The Court may suo motu or on application of any party affected, rescind, or vary its order or ruling
(a) erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected by it;
(b) in which there is an ambiguity or patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error, or omission;
(c) granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties.
(2) The Court may also, suo motu or on application of any party affected, rescind any order, judgment, or ruling granted or made in the absence of that party or made in error.
Rule 23 – Application for Interpretation of Judgment
In a matter before the Court in which the Court has delivered its judgment, any of the parties in the suit may, by an application with a written address to the Court, apply for an interpretation of the judgment.
Provided that such an application shall not be for the purpose of requesting the Court to rewrite its judgment or reverse itself.
Provided further that the application with a written address shall only be for the purpose of clearing any ambiguity or uncertainty, or for ascertaining the true meaning of or the intent of any word used in the judgment.
Rule 24 – Time Limit for Application for Interpretation of Judgment
An application for interpretation of a judgment of the Court shall be by motion on notice and shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after the delivery of the judgment or ruling.
Rule 25 – Response to Application for Interpretation
Where a party or counsel in a matter in which the Court has delivered its judgment has been served the notice of application for interpretation of the judgment of the Court, that respondent shall file the response or the counter-affidavit, or its written address, within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice of the application for interpretation of the judgment.
These provisions illustrate that the National Industrial Court has gone beyond the traditional common law slip rule by expressly codifying its power to rescind, vary, or interpret its own judgments. Importantly, however, the Rules preserve the boundary between clarification and review, ensuring that the Court does not rewrite or reverse its judgment under the guise of interpretation.
Judicial Interpretation of the Scope of the Slip Rule
In Macron Serv. Ltd. v. Afro Cont. Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 376) 201, the court in determining the extent and scope of the slip rule explained thus:
“The Slip Rule is not an opportunity for the court to rewrite its judgment, no matter how subtly disguised. But if, by any mistake, an order of court has been drawn up which does not express the intention of the court, the court has the jurisdiction to correct it. The rule does not permit the Judge to rehear an application to make an order which he intended to make but which he ought not to make. Even when an order has been obtained by fraud, the court has no jurisdiction to rehear it. It would be mischievous if the courts were to have jurisdiction to rehear a case”.
The slip rule is applied flexibly, depending on the facts of each case and guided by precedent. Its purpose is to correct genuine clerical errors or accidental slips to reflect the court’s true intention, prevent injustice, and ensure accurate records. What counts as a slip in one case may be a substantive change beyond the court’s power in another.
Scope and Limits of Clarification of Judgement under the Slip Rule
The courts have been careful to define how far they can go in clarifying a judgment. The guiding principle is that clarification must not amount to a review of a judgment.
- What the Court Can Do:
- Correct clerical or typographical errors, such as names, figures, or dates.
- Rectify accidental slips or omissions where the record does not reflect what was actually decided.
- Provide clarification to ensure proper enforcement or execution of the judgment.
2. What the Court Cannot Do:
- Reopen issues of Law and fact already decided or reconsider the merits of the case.
- Vary the substance or reasoning of the judgment.
- Introduce new evidence or arguments under the guise of clarification.
Procedural Steps for Invoking the Slip Rule or Seeking Clarification
- Application to the Same Court: Only the court that delivered the judgment can clarify or correct it.
- By Motion on Notice: The proper procedure is to file a motion on notice citing the relevant rule. The motion should specify the slip, omission, or ambiguity and request correction to give effect to the judgment’s meaning.
- Prompt Application: Though there is no fixed time limit, applications must be brought promptly after discovery of the error to avoid being deemed an abuse of process.
- No Alteration of Substance: The court will only clarify what is necessary to give effect to its intention. Any attempt to alter the reasoning or findings transforms the motion into an impermissible review.
Conclusion
The principles governing the clarification of judgments require a careful balance between the finality of judicial decisions and the need to ensure justice is effectively administered. Nigerian courts apply the doctrine of clarification narrowly, recognising the fine line between seeking clarification and pursuing an appeal. While Nigerian courts acknowledge their power to correct or clarify a judgment under the slip rule, that power is strictly limited. It is aimed solely at ensuring that the record accurately reflects the Court’s true intention not at altering, reviewing, or re-evaluating the substance of the decision.
For both lawyers and litigants, appreciating this distinction is crucial. A request for clarification is not an avenue to re-argue the case; it is a procedural tool designed to make a judgment workable, comprehensible, and enforceable. Ultimately, the judiciary’s cautious use of this power preserves the integrity and certainty of judicial decisions, two essential pillars of a credible justice system.
[1] Macron Serv. Ltd. v. Afro Cont. Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 376) 201,judgment