The recent ruling by the Federal High Court, Lokoja (per Justice Isah Dashen), setting aside its own judgment of December 2025 , which had directed INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) , does not undermine democracy. On the contrary, it strengthens it. It is important to rightly emphasis on the importance of finality and the doctrine of functus officio, it fundamentally misunderstands the legal position where the earlier judgment was either a default judgment or one vitiated by the failure to join a necessary party whose rights were directly affected. In either case and, the facts strongly suggest a procedural irregularity amounting to a denial of fair hearing , the Lokoja Court acted squarely within its jurisdiction and in line with settled Nigerian law.
The Critical Distinction: Judgments on the Merits versus Default or Irregular Judgments
The doctrine of functus officio applies with full force to judgments delivered on the merits , that is, after a full contest, arguments, and adjudication of the substantive rights of the parties. It does not, however, apply with the same rigidity to default judgments or those tainted by fundamental procedural defects, such as the non-joinder of a necessary party.
This distinction was made crystal clear by the Supreme Court in the leading case of Mohammed v. Husseini (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 108 at 139, where Mohammed, JSC held:
“However, it is important to observe that a Judge is functus officio if he gives judgment on the merit. A judgment in default is not a judgment ‘on the merits’… The principle obviously is that unless and until a Court has pronounced a judgment upon the merits or by consent, it is to have the power to revoke the expression of its coercive power where that has only been obtained by a failure to follow any of the rules of procedure.”
This principle remains good law and has been consistently applied. A default judgment (or one with similar procedural effect) is essentially a sanction for non-appearance or non-compliance; it is not a definitive adjudication of the real dispute. The court that entered it therefore retains the power , and, in appropriate cases, the duty ,to set it aside so that the matter can be properly heard on the merits with all necessary parties before it.
Statutory Power and Inherent Jurisdiction
Order 8 Rule 10 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 expressly empowers the Court to set aside or vary a default judgment upon an application by the defendant, on just terms, where a good defence is shown and a satisfactory explanation is given for the default (with provision for extension of time where necessary).
Beyond the Rules, every superior court of record possesses inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment where it is a nullity, was obtained by fraud, or was entered in circumstances that amount to a denial of fair hearing. The non-joinder of a necessary party , in this case, the Peace Movement Party, which claims ownership of the logo in issue , whose proprietary and legal interests are directly affected renders the proceedings fundamentally defective. Such a judgment is liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae , as a matter of justice , and not as an appellate exercise.
The Lokoja Court did not arbitrarily reopen the merits months later. It simply corrected a constitutional defect: the earlier order was made without hearing a party whose rights were directly engaged. That is not judicial overreach; it is the very minimum required by Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) ,the right to fair hearing.
Recent Supreme Court Guidance
While these principles are long settled, the Supreme Court has continued to reinforce them in recent decisions, including:
- University of Calabar v. AMCON & Ors (2024) LPELR-62596 (SC), which underscores the proper application of the 2019 Rules in default and procedural contexts, emphasising that rules of court are meant to facilitate, not frustrate, substantial justice;
- El-Asbab Hotel & Investment Ind (Nig) Ltd & Anor v. Eco Bank (2024) LPELR-62448 (SC) and Macfranklyn Engineering & Services v. Daewoo (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2024) LPELR-62633 (SC), which remind courts to apply procedural provisions judiciously in pursuit of justice rather than technical finality that produces injustice.
These authorities complement the enduring decision in Ogolo v. Ogolo (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 972) 163 (SC), which sets out the well-known considerations for setting aside a default judgment: a reasonable explanation for the default, a defence on the merits (or good cause shown), and the timeliness of the application (or satisfactory explanation for any delay). The Lokoja Court was entitled to exercise its discretion in favour of setting aside the judgment once these , or analogous , conditions, particularly the fundamental defect of non-joinder, were met.
Finality Serves Justice — It Does Not Trump It
In Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 and Chief Yonwuren v. Modern Signs (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 244 for the principle that litigation must come to an end. However, those cases concerned judgments delivered on the merits after a full hearing. They do not support the proposition that a court is powerless to correct its own default judgment or a judgment that is a nullity for want of fair hearing.
A judgment entered against a party who was never served, or without joining a necessary party whose rights are extinguished, would be immune from correction by the very court that made it. That would be the real threat to public confidence in the judiciary.
The Real Threat to Constitutional Order
Democracy and the rule of law are not preserved by shielding defective judgments from correction. They are preserved by ensuring that every person whose rights are affected has a fair opportunity to be heard before those rights are determined. By setting aside the earlier order, restoring the status quo ante, and directing a fresh hearing with all necessary parties (including the Peace Movement Party) joined, the Lokoja Court fulfilled its constitutional duty.
This is not the judiciary “digging democracy’s grave.” It is the judiciary performing its proper role. Any aggrieved party can now fully participate in the rehearing and, if dissatisfied with the final outcome on the merits, exercise its right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. That is precisely how the constitutional hierarchy of the judiciary is meant to function.
Practical Advice for the NDC
The NDC should urgently consider filing a motion before the Lokoja Court seeking a stay of its order (pending the rehearing or any appeal) in order to preserve the status quo and prevent irreversible steps by INEC, such as deregistration processes. In my view, returning to the trial court first for any necessary variations, joinder formalities, or interim protections is the wiser course. It aligns with the ruling’s emphasis on a fresh hearing with all parties and positions the matter more strategically for a comprehensive resolution on the merits.
The law exists to protect principles, not personalities or political interests. When a court corrects its own default or irregular judgment to ensure that all necessary parties are heard, it does not weaken the administration of justice , it strengthens public confidence in it. The decision of the Federal High Court, Lokoja, was sound in both law and principle. It deserves to be defended, not condemned as an assault on democracy.
Charles Ude, Esq, an Abuja-based legal practitioner, can be reached via email at charlesude2014@gmail.com
(The Whistler)