Supreme Court fines lawyer N50m, bars him from courts over ‘abusive’ filing

The Supreme Court said the lawyer's application fell far below acceptable legal standards and described it as one of the most “thoughtless and irresponsible applications” ever brought before the court.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has ordered a lawyer, S.M. Danyaro, to personally pay N50 million in costs and barred him from appearing before any court in the country until he complies with its directives, over what it described as a “vexatious, irresponsible, abusive and unprofessional” application.

The Certified True Copy of the ruling seen by PREMIUM TIMES shows that the court gave the decision on 22 June in Appeal No. SC.266/2017.

Justicr Jamilu Tukur delivered the lead ruling of the panel of Justices, and in agreement, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme issued a strongly worded opinion rebuking Mr Danyaro’s conduct and affirming the retributions meted out in the lead ruling.

The court said the motion, filed as a request for review, was not only improper but amounted to a gross abuse of judicial process, effectively seeking to reopen issues that had already been settled by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has in recent years taken a firmer stance against filings it considers frivolous or designed to relitigate concluded matters, often warning that its decisions are final and binding and cannot be re-opened through disguised applications.

In her remarks, Mrs Nwosu-Iheme noted that the application fell far below acceptable legal standards and described it as one of the most “thoughtless and irresponsible applications” ever brought before the court.

She held that it reflected professional misconduct and exposed a disregard for basic legal principles governing final judgments of the apex court.

“This Application is one of the most thoughtless and irresponsible Applications ever brought before this Court… It is condemnable as it amounts to Professional Misconduct on the part of counsel for the Applicant… It is bereft of Common Sense, it is dismissed in its entirety,” the judge declared.

Mrs Nwosu-Iheme added that Supreme Court judgements remain final, subsisting and binding, noting that the filing amounted to an attempt to relitigate what had already been conclusively determined.

The court dismissed the application and upheld its earlier judgement delivered on 4 June 2025, in the same appeal.

Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered Mr Danyaro to personally pay N50 million to the respondents within 90 days, describing the filing as a deliberate attempt to cause annoyance and waste judicial time.

It also directed him to file a certificate of compliance in line with Order 12 Rules 4(d), 6 and 7 of the Supreme Court Rules.

The court further ordered that the lawyer shall cease to have right of audience in any court in Nigeria until he demonstrates full compliance with its directives.

Background

The dispute arose from the long-running legal battle over the stool of the Emir of Gwandu in Kebbi State.

In its judgement of 4 June 2025, the Supreme Court nullified a Kebbi State High Court decision that had reinstated Al-Mustapha Jokolo as the 19th Emir of Gwandu.

In a split decision of three to two, the apex court held that Mr Jokolo failed to comply with Section 5(4) of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, which requires an aggrieved party to first submit a formal complaint to the governor before commencing legal proceedings.

Delivering the lead judgement in the appeal, Emmanuel Agim held that although litigants have the right to seek judicial redress in chieftaincy disputes, they must first comply with procedures prescribed by law.

The court found that Mr Jokolo failed to serve the mandatory pre-action notice on the Governor of Kebbi State before filing his suit, rendering the action incompetent.

“This suit was filed prematurely without first presenting a complaint to the governor as stipulated by law,” Mr Agim ruled at the time.

“The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and its decision is therefore null and void.”

The Supreme Court consequently set aside the judgements of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had earlier ordered Mr Jokolo’s reinstatement, holding that the failure to exhaust the dispute-resolution mechanism provided by law invalidated the entire proceedings.

It was that judgement that Mr Danyaro subsequently sought to challenge through the application for review dismissed by the court in the latest ruling.