Such an Applicant, must demonstrate that the error as committed has occasioned him or her a miscarriage of justice. It follows therefore, that, even where it is demonstrated that, the court slipped in error, but the error so committed, never occasioned the Applicant a miscarriage of justice, an invitation to this court to review the decision of it's ordinary panel would not succeed.
Exceptional circumstances and miscarriage of justice as conjunctive requirements
The review jurisdiction is not an ordinary one and an applicant who seeks to file such an application must satisfy himself that it is within either rule 54 (a) or (b) of C.I. 16. An applicant who alleges that a decision must be reviewed on grounds of exceptional circumstances shall further demonstrate that it has also occasioned a miscarriage of justice as a proper interpretation of the text makes the two phrases conjunctive. Therefore, where a party proves that the decision of the ordinary court should be reviewed as a result of exceptional circumstances, that party shall further demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned to enable the Court to exercise its discretion; otherwise, the application shall fail. The two basic conditions for review must be met before the Court can exercise its discretion to grant a review, namely, that it is not a jurisdiction to make available to a party who is dissatisfied with every decision of the Supreme Court. The review jurisdiction, unlike an appeal, is limited to only parties who can meet the conditions precedent before a discretion to grant can be exercised.
Grounds for review of a decision of the Supreme Court
A review of a judgment is a special jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction conferred on the court; and the court would exercise that special jurisdiction in favour of an Applicant only in exceptional circumstances. This implies that such an application should satisfy the court that there has been some fundamental or basic error which the court inadvertently committed in the course of considering its judgment; and which fundamental error has thereby resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Consequently, a losing party is not entitled to use the review process to prevail upon the court to have another or a second look at his case.
The applicant’s Counsel has argued strenuously, that the ordinary bench ought not to have given judgment in favour of the respondent. But, the Counsel for the respondent is right when he said that all the matters raised by Counsel for the applicant are a re-argument of the appeal and do not disclose any exceptional circumstances resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Any attempt by the Court to lower the standard for review application will diminish its extraordinary nature and bring it to equal status as an appeal, which would defeat the purpose for which review jurisdiction was created to make it unique from an ordinary appeal which is meant to be accessible for justice by any party who is dissatisfied with a decision of any of the national courts.
It is worth reminding lawyers who invoke our review jurisdiction under Article 133(1) of the 1992 Constitution that, same is specially created, and distinct from our jurisdiction to hear and determines appeals. The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not one that vests the court with the power to engage in a rehearing of a lost appeal determined by the same court. For this reason, it is rudimentary that, review is not an appeal. Therefore, having urged certain grounds on the court through an appeal, which grounds were evaluated and dismissed, a dissatisfied Appellant, cannot guise the same grounds and re-argue the case rejected by the Court. To succeed on review, the Appellant must show that the court committed a fundamental error, which error was so crucial, that if same were not committed, the decision would have concluded differently.
