The Supreme Court’s clarification in Fidelity Bank vs Sagecom case is not “judicial abracadabra” but a legitimate use of inherent jurisdiction and the slip rule to ensure fair enforcement of its judgment
In the bustling corridors of Nigeria’s apex court, a decades-old legal saga reached what many hoped would be its final chapter earlier this month.
The dispute between Fidelity Bank Plc and Sagecom Concepts Limited – a legacy case stemming from a 2002 credit facility gone sour – has captivated the financial sector, legal practitioners, and the public alike.
When the Supreme Court delivered its main judgment in April 2025, affirming substantial damages against the bank, whispers of a potential N225 billion liability sent ripples through the markets.
Fast-forward to December 13, 2025: A five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Lawal Garba, with the ruling read by Justice Adamu Jauro, partially granted Fidelity Bank’s post-judgment motion.
The court clarified key aspects of the April ruling – mandating payment in naira, simple interest at 19.5% per annum (barring daily compounding), and applying the exchange rate from the date of the High Court’s 2018 judgment (around N305/USD). This effectively scaled down the bank’s exposure to an estimated N30 billion range.
The decision sparked immediate controversy. Some media outlets and commentators decried it as “judicial abracadabra” – a magical rewrite of a final judgment that undermined the sanctity of the Supreme Court’s authority.
But a closer examination reveals a far more mundane, and constitutionally sound, reality: the exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to clarify and perfect its own pronouncements.
Roots of a Long-Running Dispute
The case traces back to 2002, when the now-defunct FSB International Bank (later merged into Fidelity in 2005) extended $3 million and N100 million facilities to engineering firm G. Cappa Plc.
The loans were secured by a 25-year leasehold interest in premium residential properties at 23/25 Probyn Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
When G. Cappa defaulted, the bank enforced its security by assigning the unexpired lease to Sagecom Concepts Limited in 2005 for N350 million. Unbeknownst to Sagecom, a prior injunction from related proceedings restrained further dealings with the asset. Sagecom sued in 2011, claiming lost rental income and damages.
Lower courts sided with Sagecom, a position upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2025.
The damages, calculated in USD equivalents with compounded interest and current exchange rates, ballooned spectacularly – fueling headlines of existential threat to Fidelity Bank.
The Post-Judgment Motion: Clarification, Not Reversal
Dissatisfied with ambiguities in computing the debt, Fidelity Bank – now led by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN – filed a motion on October 8, 2025, seeking consequential orders.
The bank prayed for payment in naira, simple (not compounded) interest, and alignment with established precedents on foreign currency conversions.
The Supreme Court granted three of the five prayers, refusing to fix the exact quantum or other specifics.
Crucially, it invoked its precedent in Anibaba v. Dana Airlines Limited (2025), which mandates converting foreign currency judgments to naira at the trial court’s judgment date rate – not the payment date.
This wasn’t an overturning of the April decision, which affirmed liability. Rather, it was a refinement to ensure enforceability and consistency with Nigerian law, preventing windfall gains from naira depreciation or punitive compounding not explicitly intended.
The Slip Rule and Inherent Jurisdiction: No Magic Involved
Critics invoking “abracadabra” overlook a bedrock of judicial procedure: the “slip rule.” Embedded in the Supreme Court Rules (including provisions akin to Order 20 Rule 4 of the 2024 Rules, allowing corrections for clerical mistakes, accidental slips, or to give effect to the judgment’s true intention), this power permits the court to amend its rulings post-delivery without reopening merits.
As legal experts note, such clarifications are routine in common-law jurisdictions.
They prevent injustice from ambiguous drafting, ensure judgments are practical, and uphold finality by avoiding unnecessary fresh litigation.
The Supreme Court’s action here was precisely that – ancillary orders to effectuate its April intent, not a substantive reversal.
Fidelity Bank’s representatives have expressed gratitude for the “clarity and closure,” while maintaining silence on details.
Sagecom’s camp has yet to comment publicly, though the partial refusal of prayers leaves room for further computation disputes.
Broader Implications for Justice Delivery
This ruling emphasises the Supreme Court’s role not just as final arbiter under Section 235 of the 1999 Constitution, but as guardian of practical justice.
Allowing limited post-judgment tweaks for clarity reinforces public confidence: judgments must be fair, enforceable, and aligned with precedent.
Far from eroding finality, such mechanisms enhance it. Without them, ambiguous rulings could spawn endless satellite litigation or unenforceable awards – true aberrations.
As Nigeria’s judiciary navigates complex commercial disputes amid economic volatility, this case serves as a reminder: the law is a human endeavour, prone to oversight in drafting, but equipped with tools for correction.
No abracadabra – just principled adjudication.
Freelanews will continue monitoring developments in this landmark matter.
Ojelabi, the publisher of Freelanews, is an award winning and professionally trained mass communicator, who writes ruthlessly about pop culture, religion, politics and entertainment.
