By Otunba Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo
The Federal High Court in Lokoja’s recent decision to set aside its December 10, 2025, judgment compelling the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has ignited intense political debate. Predictably, reactions have largely split along partisan lines rather than legal merit. Yet, this ruling offers a clear illustration of core Nigerian judicial principles: the doctrine of functus officio, the mandatory joinder of necessary parties, and the constitutional imperative of fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Functus Officio: The General Rule of Finality
Under Nigerian law, once a court delivers a final judgment on the merits, it becomes functus officio it has fulfilled its function and lacks authority to revisit or reverse the decision. This principle safeguards the certainty, stability, and finality of judicial outcomes. Aggrieved parties must ordinarily appeal to a higher court rather than ask the same judge to reconsider.
The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have consistently affirmed this. For instance, in Ukachukwu v. UBA (2005) and Mohammed v. Husseini (1998), courts emphasized that a judge cannot simply change their mind after a final judgment on the merits. Exceptions exist, however: a court may set aside its judgment if it is a nullity (e.g., for lack of jurisdiction or breach of fair hearing), obtained by fraud, or in cases of default judgments not decided on merits.
In the NDC matter, Justice Isah Dashen did not reverse the earlier ruling due to a mere change of heart or disagreement with its reasoning. The court found the prior judgment constitutionally defective: it was delivered without hearing all necessary parties, specifically the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claimed ownership of the logo central to the NDC’s registration application. Material facts were also allegedly suppressed. This rendered the judgment a nullity, allowing the same court to set it aside ex debito justitiae (as a matter of justice).
Necessary Parties and the Rule of Audi Alteram Partem
A “necessary party” is one whose rights or interests will be directly and materially affected by the court’s decision, such that the matter cannot be effectively and completely determined without them. Courts have long held that no order or judgment should bind or prejudice a person who was not a party and never heard. Failure to join such a party breaches fair hearing and vitiates the proceedings.
This flows from the ancient maxim audi alteram partem (“let the other side be heard”), one of the twin pillars of natural justice alongside nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). Nigerian courts have elevated this to constitutional status under Section 36(1).
Key precedents include:
* Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1989): The Supreme Court stressed that any decision affecting a party’s rights without affording them a hearing is a nullity, regardless of whether the outcome seems substantively correct. “The question is not whether injustice has been done… but whether a party entitled to be heard… had in fact been given an opportunity.”15
* Green v. Green (1987) and subsequent cases like Olawoye v. Jimoh (2013): A necessary party must be joined so the issues can be fully and finally settled without leaving room for further litigation.18
* Adigun v. Attorney-General, Oyo State and related authorities: Proceedings violating fair hearing are void ab initio and can be set aside.
In this case, the PMP’s claimed interest in the logo meant its rights could be directly impacted. Excluding it breached audi alteram partem, making the original judgment vulnerable to being vacated.
What the Ruling Does and Does Not Decide
The Lokoja court did not declare that the NDC can never exist or be registered. It simply vacated the earlier order compelling INEC’s registration, restored the status quo ante, and directed that the substantive suit proceed afresh with all necessary parties (including INEC, PMP, and NDC) joined. This allows a full hearing on the merits of registration compliance with electoral laws and INEC guidelines.
Options ahead include appeals to the Court of Appeal, fresh proceedings at the Federal High Court, or both. The process upholds judicial integrity rather than foreclosing political outcomes.
Broader Lessons for Nigerian Democracy
Political associations must comply strictly with registration requirements under the Constitution, Electoral Act, and INEC guidelines. More importantly, litigants and courts must ensure all necessary parties are joined from the outset to avoid protracted challenges and nullities.
This case reinforces that strong institutions rest on due process, not just outcomes. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. A judgment procured in breach of fair hearing, even if well-intentioned, remains vulnerable precisely because it undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
Whether one supports or opposes the NDC is a political question. Whether every affected party receives a fair hearing is a constitutional imperative. By prioritizing process over expediency, the Lokoja ruling upholds the rule of law a foundation essential for credible elections and democratic legitimacy in Nigeria. The legal journey continues, as it should in a constitutional democracy.
Signed
Otunba (Dr) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo
National President SCN
SpeakUp Collective Nigeria
Leave a comment