1. Introduction
One of the issues facing various legal systems across the world is striking a balance between the finality of judgments and upholding substantial justice. While the society requires an end to litigation, the pursuit of justice also demands that parties should not be barred from reopening concluded cases merely because they have attained finality. Endless and boundless litigation would certainly emasculate the certainty of a legal system, weaken public confidence in the judicial system and flood the courtroom with cases. On the other hand, where parties are allowed to reopen their case in the interest of justice, it strengthens the public confidence in the judicial system and upholds the principles of justice.
This issue becomes very alarming when cogent and compelling evidence emerges after a final judgment has been delivered. Such subsequent exculpatory evidence can become available through various methods which include modern forensic technologies, reanalyzed digital records, whistle-blower disclosures, a confessing post-judgment witness, corruptive investigations etc. This is applicable to both civil and criminal trials, but becomes very serious in criminal trials where due to the absence of such compelling evidence, the wrong party was wrongfully convicted and thereby sentenced.
The Nigerian judicial system is also experiencing this issue. The adversarial legal system being operated in Nigeria places a strong emphasis on the finality of judgments. This implies that once a party appeals the judgment of a lower court up till the apex court, the judgment of such apex court becomes final and cannot be appealed or reopened. Thus, courts generally lose authority over a lawsuit no matter what emerges after the judgment.1 While this may establish the strong need to put an end to litigation, it does not adequately address situations where substantial and compelling evidence emerges after the judgment of the apex court.
In contrast, South Korea has developed a system that preserves finality of judgment while recognizing some exceptional circumstances demanding a retrial or reopening of cases. This system gives room for reopening of cases mostly where the evidence used in reaching the earlier judgment was forged, false, or where there was a judicial or investigative misconduct.2 This exception seeks to restore hope in the mind of the common man and strengthens the need to do justice between parties to a suit.
This article examines how both Nigeria and South Korea uphold the doctrine of finality of judgments and argues that while the doctrine remains an indispensable principle of the Nigerian Legal System being an adversarial system, opportunities should be given, by providing a structured mechanism for reopening concluded cases in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice and also strengthen public confidence in the judicial system.
2. The Principle of Finality under Nigerian Law
As earlier indicated, Nigeria operates an adversarial legal system. The finality of judgment is an indispensable principle of the Nigerian legal system. It is captioned in the Latin maxim Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, which means it is in the interest of the state that there be an end to litigation. In an adversarial legal system, judges are not involved directly in what transpired between the parties and are not to inquire personally about the facts, they are only concerned about what both parties bring to the table. This necessitates the need for finality of judgments because a judgment delivered in this legal system, is based on the facts and evidence produced by both parties and not the judge.
The finality of judgments in the Nigerian Jurisprudence is expressed through the doctrines of functus officio and res judicata. Under the doctrine of functus officio, a court loses its authority over a matter after it has delivered judgment in respect of such matter and cannot thereby reopen such matter or reconsider the judgment except under the slip rule.3 The Nigerian Courts, especially, Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that once judgment is delivered, the court lacks jurisdiction to revisit the merits of the decision earlier made.4 Similarly, the doctrine of res judicata protects citizens from judicial harassment. It prevents parties from relitigating issues that have already been determined by a competent court. However, this is not presumed, it must be proved. A party seeking to rely on this principle must prove that the case has been ruled upon by a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties and also, on the same issues.5
Several attempts by Nigerian litigants to have the Supreme Court reopen a case and revisit its judgment have failed. A long-time principle was established in Obioha v Ibero.6 In this case, after the Supreme Court had delivered its final judgment in the substantive dispute between both parties, the applicant brought an application before the Supreme Court, seeking in effect, a revisiting and reconsideration of that judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, emphasizing the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).7 The court further stated that there was no provision permitting a general rehearing or review of those judgments merely because a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the court. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is captured below.
Once the Supreme Court has entered judgment in a case, that decision is final and will remain so for ever. The law may in future be amended to affect future issues on the same subject, but for the case decided, that is the end of the matter. The irony of this application is that the protagonist of this application on four previous occasions, Chief Williams, S.A.N. is now on the receiving end. But this Court has on each occasion stood firmly that it lacked jurisdiction.8
The quoted judgment of the Supreme Court above reveals the rigid adherence of the Nigerian Courts to the finality of judgments. In such cases, where the Supreme Court has delivered its final judgment, the next appeal is to the court of heaven where God is the only Judge.
3. Doctrine of Finality of Judgment under South Korean Law
The doctrine of finality of judgment is recognized under the South Korean law. When a final judgment has been delivered, it becomes binding and unchallengeable. However, in exceptional circumstances, the South Korean courts give room for retrial of cases even after they have been concluded.9 The Korean Law governs the type of cases that warrant reopening. A retrial motion may be successful in the following situations:10
- Forged or altered evidence
- Testimony, expert evidence, interpretation, or translation was false
- When a guilty verdict for “false accusation” was finalized against the accuser of the person applying for reopening
- Conflicting judgments where the finalized decision was altered by another judgment
- When new evidence was discovered
- Concerning IP rights, the Korean intellectual property organization or a Korean court deemed the infringed right void
- Judicial or investigative misconduct
To employ this, the court with jurisdiction over retrials is the court that rendered the final decision. The majority of cases in which a Retrial succeeded were cases in which new evidence, judicial misconduct, or investigative misconduct was found.
A significant case to illustrate the finality of judgments in South Korea is the Hwaseong Serial Murder Case. In this case, the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office reopened the decades-old case after Lee Chun-jae, who is already serving a life sentence for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law in 1994, confessed to the crime in October. Prior to the confession, a man surnamed Yun was wrongfully convicted for the eighth murder in the serial killing. Advances in forensic science, particularly in DNA amplification and recovery, coupled with the existence of a criminal database, led to a breakthrough after 33 years. Follow-up investigations confirmed the presence of Lee’s DNA in evidence collected from five of the 14 killings. For the remaining cases, including the eighth murder, Lee provided very specific information that only the culprit could know, including the layout of the crime scene and how the victim had been undressed. After the police in 2020 confirmed Lee to be the real culprit, a retrial was conducted and the court cleared Yun of all charges, 11 years after he finished serving time for a crime he did not commit.
The Korea Herald, one of the leading bloggers in Korea, met with Yun after the retrial and asked how he felt. He said he felt a “massive weight has been lifted from his shoulders,” and that he and his family would no longer have to live in shame.11 This statement made by Yun revealed the mental and psychological effect of a judgment concluded in error or by mistake. Had it been there was no option for him to retry the case, he would have lived all his lifetime behind bars and his family would have been subjected to shame.
4. Lessons and Recommendations for Nigeria
This article does not argue that Nigeria must operate in consonance with the South Korea system, which practices an inquisitorial method. This is for the singular reason that both countries operate different legal systems and constitutional structures. So, to argue that Nigeria should change its entire legal system to an inquisitorial method, would be illogical.
The lessons for Nigeria from South Korea are only conceptual. South Korea demonstrated that a legal system upholds finality of judgments and still provides certain mechanisms to create room for the correction of grave injustice arising from final judgments. Nigeria may therefore consider introducing a statutory framework that permits reopening of concluded cases under narrowly defined circumstances. This includes incorporating the mechanisms provided under the South Korean Legal System.
Where cogent and compelling evidence is discovered which could not have been discovered notwithstanding the great level of diligence undertaken during the original suit, an opportunity to reopen the case should be given to the parties. It is even trite that the principle of justice recognizes the fact that it is better for nine convicts to go scot-free than for one innocent man to be wrongfully convicted.
The Nigerian ecosystem maybe unequivocally corrupt, but the judicial system cannot be singled out. Past occurrences have shown that corrupted judges, lawyers, court officials and even policy makers may exist in the Nigerian society. Where these categories of people have influence in the judicial system, there is high possibility that justice will be denied and their selfish interests upheld. A final judgment based on corruption cannot be said to have secured justice to society nor to the successful party. Rather, it is justice procured for the wrong party. The discovery of this error even after a final judgment should certainly trigger the reopening of such a case so that the interest of justice is served.
A common and singular argument that may be raised by opponents of the position taken in this article is that if the proposition of this argument comes to light in Nigeria, it would encourage endless litigation. While this may be said to be legitimate, preserving endless litigation should not be mistaken for preserving justice. Where a threshold is laid down for a case to be reopened, the finality of such judgments will become stronger and promote public confidence in the judicial system. The proposition will ensure that reopening of concluded cases remains an extraordinary remedy than an appellate process.
5. Conclusion
The doctrine of finality in the Nigerian legal system, is an indispensable doctrine. It promotes certainty, efficiency and respect for judicial authority. The Nigerian judicial system recognizes that litigation must have an ending. Nevertheless, the doctrine should not be used as a refuge for injustice. Cases occasionally arise in which postjudgment discoveries, notwithstanding due diligence observed during the trial, may result in the overturn of the earlier decision made if such had been discovered during the trial.
Nigerian courts strongly frown at attempting to bring an application before the court after a final judgment has been delivered. There are instances where a huge cost was awarded personally against counsel for bringing an application before the Supreme Court to review its judgment. The award of costs against counsel personally was intended in various cases to serve as deterrent to other counsel who may harbour the intention to follow a similar route and points to the rigid adherence to finality of judgments in Nigeria.
South Korea demonstrates that while a legal system must uphold finality, it is still very much possible to create exceptional procedures for correcting wrongful decisions of the court provided the threshold are met.
No doubt, the legitimacy of judicial authority absolutely lies in certainty. Fairness, however, should not be excluded. Where a legal system fails to correct obvious and apparent miscarriages of justice and the mechanism to correct such is available, it emasculates public confidence in the whole judicial system. Nigeria should, therefore, consider introducing a framework allowing the reopening of concluded cases in exceptional circumstances to correct wrong decisions. While the existence of finality of judgments should be retained, its flexibility in the presence of substantial and credible evidence to prevent grave injustice should prevail.
* Faruq Anifowose is an NYSC Associate, Dispute Resolution, at S. P. A. Ajibade & Co., Lagos, Nigeria.
Footnotes
1. The Late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa JSC (as he then was), in Adegoke Motors v Adesanya (1983) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 25, had this to say when referring to the finality of Supreme Court decisions, ‘We are final not because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final’.
2. Sean Hayes, ‘Overturning of a Finalized Criminal Conviction in Korea’ (The Korean Law Blog, 18 December, 2025) (https://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2025/12/korean-retrials.html) accessed on 30th September 2026.
3. The slip rule in the Nigerian Jurisprudence allows courts to correct clerical errors, accidental slips, clarification of ambiguities in a judgment after it has been delivered.
4. The Supreme Court in Nigerian Army v Iyela (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 115, held that once a court has given a final decision and necessary consequential orders in a matter presented before it for adjudication, it becomes functus officio and is precluded from reviewing or varying the form of the judgment or order apart from the correction of clerical mistakes or accidental slips. In other words, such a court has no jurisdiction thereafter to review or vary the decision even if it realizes afterwards that the decision is manifestly wrong.
5. The court in Edem v Ishie (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1869) 507, held that where a court of competent jurisdiction has settled with finality the issues in contention between the contending parties, none of the parties or his/her privies has the right to re-litigate that issue again by bringing a fresh action. The matter is said to be res judicata. The implication is that not only the parties but also their privies, including but not limited to their agents and representatives, are estopped from bringing up the matter again. This is because, previous adjudication by a competent court between the same parties on the same subject matter is one of the pillars upon which the rule of estoppel per rem judicatam is founded.
6. (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 322) 503.
7. CFRN 1999 as amended s235.
8. Per BELGORE, J.S.C. at page 520 paras. F-G.
9. This mechanism gained widespread public awareness due to the hit 2017 South Korean legal movie drama, New Trial (also titled Jaesim in Korean), which was based on a real-life wrongful conviction in the Iksan murder case.
10. See, Korean Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 420 – 422.
11. Yoon Min-sik, ‘Hwaseong murders: Korea’s most infamous cold case solved after 33 years’ (The Korea Herald, 5 July, 2023) - (Hwaseong murders: Korea’s most infamous cold case solved after 33 years - The Korea Herald)accessed on 21st September, 2026.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
