Special Reports

“Post-Judgment Motion Cannot Replace Substantive Proceedings” — Supreme Court Voids ₦1.07bn Entitlement Award To Ex-Kogi Deputy Gov. Achuba

The Supreme Court has overturned the ₦1.07 billion award earlier granted to former Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Elder Simon Achuba, over alleged unpaid salaries, allowances and other entitlements.

In a judgment delivered on May 8, 2026, the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the Governor of Kogi State and another, and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal which had awarded the amount in favour of Achuba.

The dispute arose from claims by the former deputy governor that he was entitled to unpaid salaries, allowances and other benefits. While an earlier judgment had affirmed his entitlement to salaries and allowances, the Supreme Court held that no court had specifically determined or fixed the exact amount payable to him.

The apex court held that the Court of Appeal exceeded its appellate jurisdiction when it proceeded, through a post-judgment application, to calculate and award a specific monetary sum to Achuba.

According to the Supreme Court, the proper course was for the matter to be remitted to the National Industrial Court, being the court of first instance, for proper determination and quantification of the alleged entitlements.

The court drew a clear distinction between a judgment declaring that a person is entitled to salaries and allowances and a judgment awarding a specifically quantified monetary sum.

It held that where a definite sum is being claimed, especially one running into billions of naira, such a claim must be properly commenced and proved before the trial court through appropriate proceedings.

The Supreme Court further held that a post-judgment motion could not lawfully be used as a substitute for substantive proceedings involving assessment, computation and proof of disputed monetary claims.

It noted that such claims may require pleadings, documentary evidence and evaluation of competing figures before a court of first instance.

In its pronouncement on appellate jurisdiction, the apex court held that the Court of Appeal effectively sat as a court of first instance when it undertook the exercise of calculating and awarding the ₦1.07 billion claim without prior findings and evidential evaluation by the trial court on the exact sums due.

The appellants, represented by Chief J.B. Daudu, SAN, successfully argued that the earlier judgment merely affirmed Achuba’s entitlement to salaries and allowances without specifically quantifying the amount payable.

They also argued that any subsequent claim for a definite amount ought to have been initiated and determined before the National Industrial Court.

The appellants further contended that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the complaint before it was principally against the alleged wrongful assumption of original jurisdiction by the Court of Appeal.

The lead judgment was delivered by Justice Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme, JSC, and was supported by three other Justices of the Supreme Court.

Justice Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC, however, dissented.

The dissenting judgment appeared to take a different view on whether the Court of Appeal merely enforced an existing judgment or improperly assumed original jurisdiction by making a fresh substantive monetary award.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the ₦1.07 billion award made in favour of Achuba, whose legal team was led by Chief Femi Falana, SAN.