The Supreme Court has fined S.M. Danyaro, counsel to Mustapha Jokolo, N50 million for attempting to reopen the legal dispute over the Gwandu emirate stool through an application seeking a review of the apex court’s final judgment.
In a unanimous decision delivered on May 15, 2026, the
five-member panel dismissed the application filed by Danyaro on behalf of his
client, Jokolo, for being “frivolous and lacking merit”.
The supreme court judges on the panel are Uwani Aji, Ibrahim
Saulawa, Emmanuel Agim, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, and Jamilu Tukur (lead judge).
THE MATTER
Jokolo was the 19th Emir of Gwandu before he was deposed by
the Kebbi state government in 2005. Muhammadu Iliyasu Bashar was subsequently
installed as the 20th emir in June 2005.
Dissatisfied with the development, Jokolo approached the
Kebbi state high court.
In 2014, the Kebbi high court ruled in Jokolo’s favour and
ordered his reinstatement. The Kebbi state government and Bashar appealed the
decision.
In 2016, the court of appeal sitting in Sokoto upheld the
lower court’s ruling. The appellants then took the matter to the supreme court.
In June 2025, the supreme court declared Bashar as the
rightful Emir of Gwandu in Kebbi state, ending a 20-year legal battle over the
traditional stool.
In a split judgment of three to two, the apex court ruled
that Jokolo, who was dethroned in 2005, failed to follow due process before
challenging his removal in court.
The apex court held that Jokolo’s case was filed prematurely
because he did not submit a formal complaint to the Kebbi state governor before
heading to court, as required under section 4 of the Kebbi State Chiefs
(Appointment and Deposition) Law.
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
In a motion filed on October 2025, Jokolo, through his
counsel, Danyaro, asked the supreme court to review and set aside its judgment
“on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation of law and violation of
constitutional provisions”.
The applicant also asked the apex court to constitute
another panel to review the appeal filed by the governor of Kebbi state and
others against the judgment of the appeal court.
The applicant argued that the judgment of the supreme court
was “procured by a fraud upon the court, stemming from the respondents’
misrepresentation of section 4(3) of the chiefs (appointment & deposition)
law, cap, 21, laws of Kebbi State, 1996”.
The applicant’s notice was brought pursuant to order Order
20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court, Rules 2024, and Section 6 (6) B and 36 (1) of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
Countering the application, counsel to the 1st to 13th
respondents asked the supreme court to dismiss the application of review.
The respondents are governor of Kebbi state;
attorney-general, Kebbi state; Kebbi state council of chiefs, Gwandu emirate
council; Abdullahi Umar (Wazirin Gwanda); Muhammad Sambo Aliyu (Magajin Rafin
Gwandu); Aminullah Umaru (Magajin Gari); Muhammed Wanka (Sarkin Illo);
Mainasara Zagga (Sarkin Zagga); Buhari Muhammad (Sarkin Aleiro); Mukhtar
Abdullahi (Walin Gwandu); Ibrahim Bashar (Galadima Babba); and Aminu Ahmed
(Sarkin Fada).
The respondents’ counsel argued that focus of the review is
not “seeking to contest a clerical error or accidental slip under the slip
rule” but attempting to review and set aside the apex court judgment delivered
on June 2025.
The respondents’ counsel argued that the decision of the
supreme court is “final, binding, and not subject to review” and no
constitutional and statutory provisions allow review.
THE JUDGMENT
In the lead judgment for the application of review delivered
by Tukur, the supreme court ruled that order 20, Rule 4 of the apex court is a
“narrow procedural provision designed solely to preserve the accuracy and
integrity of the Court’s judgments, not to reopen or reconsider them”.
The apex court held that order 20, Rule 4 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”.
The supreme court ruled that the request for the apex court
to re-constitute its panel on a concluded case is “quite frankly, an affront of
the highest order to the authority, dignity, and institutional integrity of
this Court”.
“It betrays not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the
constitutional role of the Supreme Court, but also a disturbing lack of respect
for the finality of its decisions,” Tukur ruled.
“This is not a mere procedural misstep or an overzealous
argument. It is a direct invitation to this Court to repudiate its own
authority and to descend into a cycle of endless self-review. Such a
proposition is intolerable and strikes at the very heart of judicial finality.
“It must be stated in unmistakable terms that the supreme
court is not a forum that can be invited to reconstitute itself because a party
is dissatisfied with its judgment.”
The apex court described the application as “wholly
unmeritorious, vexatious, and abusive”, while dismissing it in its entirety.
The court also condemned the applicant’s counsel for filing
the application for a review of judgment in a concluded matter.
“Before I take leave of this application, I must express my
profound disapproval of the conduct of learned counsel for the Applicant,”
Tukur ruled.
“The filing of this application, in the face of clear and
unambiguous provisions of the Supreme Court Rules and the settled principles
governing the finality of this Court’s decisions, is not only misguided but
falls short of the standards expected of a legal practitioner.
“Counsel, as an officer in the temple of justice, is under a
solemn duty to uphold the law, act with candour, and refrain from advancing
positions that are plainly unsustainable.”
The apex court ordered Danyaro to personally pay the sum of
N50 million to the respondents within 90 days as cost for filing the
application.
The court said Danyaro will be allowed to appear before it
until he pays the money to the respondents.
The lead judgment was supported by four other justices in
the panel alongside their comments.
‘IRRESPONSIBLE COUNSEL’
In a comment supporting the lead judgment, Nwosu-Iheme held
that the application for review was filed by the “irresponsible counsel to
ventilate his grievance over the outcome of the substantive appeal”.
The judge said Danyaro “degenerated to a level unprecedented
in the history of application for review in this court and ended up not only
exposing his ignorance and poor knowledge of the law but making a mockery of
himself as a legal practitioner”.
The judge supported the N50 million fine imposed in the lead
judgment.
“This Application and the unbecoming conduct of counsel for
the Applicant is bereft of common sense, it is dismissed in its entirety,”
Nwosu-Iheme said.
“The judgment of this Court delivered on the 4th day of
June, 2025 in Appeal No. SC.266/2017 remain subsisting, final and binding on
all parties.
“Sequel to the vexatious and unprofessional Application of
this uncultured Counsel, S.M. Danyaro, intended only for causing annoyance when
objectively evaluated, I also order that costs of N50,000,000:00 (FIFTY MILLION
NAIRA) be paid personally by this recalcitrant Counsel, S.M. Danyaro personally
for filing this trash.”
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com