By Bamidele Kolawole
|
A vacated judgement makes a previous judgement legally void. A trial court may have the power under certain circumstances, usually involving fraud or lack of jurisdiction over the parties to a case, to vacate own judgements. It is not common for a court to vacate its judgement, and enter another judgement, especially in a criminal case or in civil matters, except if there is an evidence that the earlier judgement was procured by fraud.
To vacate a conviction generally means to set aside the verdict or judgement. While this is not a common occurrence, it is sometimes necessary. Typically, there are specific grounds on which a conviction can be vacated. These include:
Ineffective assistance of counsel, such as failure to advise the defendant of a plea deal.
Breach of a plea agreement.
Court bias.
Juror misconduct.
Of these, ineffective assistance of counsel is the most common reason for successfully vacating a conviction. If the grounds for vacating do not fall within these categories, it may not be possible to proceed. Simply, being dissatisfied with the outcome is insufficient.
Additionally, courts may vacate certain rulings, commonly referred to as judgements by non-lawyers. For instance, an injunction ruling can be vacated under specific circumstances. Injunctions come in various types:
1. Ex parte injunctions, which typically last about seven days and expire unless the opposing party applies to set them aside.
2. Interim injunctions.
3. Interlocutory injunctions, which are decided after arguments by both parties.
Vacating an interlocutory injunction is more challenging than an ex parte injunction. To vacate an interlocutory injunction, the court must find that it was obtained through fraud or mistake.
While it is generally easier to vacate ex parte injunctions, in practical cases, the process can still face significant challenges.
The word condition talks about the situation or ground in which a competent court of adjudication will need to alter or change or review its earlier decision, as the case may be. There is a popular saying that goes like this: ‘no condition is permanent’. Courts’ decisions can give way to a different one entirely; this is not to say that the Judge or Magistrate as the case may be, has compromised. But it may be due to one technicality or the other or failure to avert their minds to a serious issue that borders on the case.
Decision of the court cannot be made by any other person aside from the judges; they decide based on the facts of the case presented before them. The court decides what happens and what should be done about it. It takes weeks before decisions are made. In my humble view, decisions are synonymous to the judgements of court.
A judgement is the final part of a court case. A valid judgement resolves all the contested issues and terminates the lawsuit, since it is regarded as the court’s official pronouncement of the law on the action that was pending before it. It states who wins the case and what remedies the winner is awarded. Remedies may include money damages, injunctive relief, or both. A judgment also signifies the end of the court’s jurisdiction in the case.
Let me just mention few attributes of a valid judgement:
It must be in writing
It has to be delivered in an open court.
It must be read and pronounced by a judge.
Court can vacate its earlier decision because judgement can be delivered ‘per incuriam’ – that is judgement delivered in error. It is noteworthy saying that a lower court cannot change or upturn the decisions of a court higher than it; only a higher court can do that. A court can also correct itself. This goes up to the Supreme Court, no court in Nigeria can change the decisions of the Supreme Court; only the Supreme Court can control itself.
I wish to say on a final note, that the different judgements or conflicting judgements do not connote compromise or bias or influence. It is due to one thing or the other. However, the court still remains the hope of the common man in Nigeria.
A case once decided by a court is settled, not until it is upturned by an higher court. So it looks illogical to say a court vacates its earlier decision, except in some rare and certain circumstances by a court of appellate jurisdiction.
In general parlance, a court can vacate same, if such judgement or order is obtained it fraudulently or through misrepresentation of facts
But on the question of law, such decisions are upturned by an appellate court, except it is given by the Supreme Court, where it would need the court again to reverse it’s own decision, but it rarely happens.
There are two major reasons for this: one is when the decision was passed by per curiam. What per curiam means is that when the judgement is given erroneously; that means when it is based on error because we have error of law and error of fact when the punishment deviates from what the law says and now gave another judgement or any decision that does tally with the law, that court can change decision.
Secondly in the case of public policy, they are some decision that if at all given will not be actually conducive to the public, it will be like very harsh and it will be contrary to Public opinion. So, in that situation the court can also look at public policy because that law is meant for the people not people meant for law. When the law sees that judgement can become harmful to people, the court can change her earlier decision, looking at the actual meaning of the judgement and actually give an interpretation to it that will suit the present circumstance.
For instance, in a harsh economy like ours, things are very tough in a situation like that. The court could also put that into cognizance when giving her decision so that it will not give a decision that could not be achieved or be enforced. For example, if court gives a decision that a person should be fined N500, if the court looks at the present circumstances, the court can reduce it to N50.
Once a judge has delivered a judgment/ruling on a matter pending before him, he ceases to be seized of the matter and becomes _functus officio_ although the court may correct typographical errors or mistake in the judgment/order. See CHEVRON NIG LTD v AGUMA (2006) 9WRN 135-136.
However, the court in its inherent jurisdiction has the power to set aside its own decision (final judgement, order or proceedings) made without jurisdiction or against those who procured it by misrepresentation (where same has been fraudulently obtained) or suppression of facts is proven.
A vacated judgement or order makes a previous legal judgement or order legally void.
A trial court may have the power under certain circumstances, usually involving fraud or lack of jurisdiction over the parties to a case, to vacate its own judgements.
Vacate means to remove, void, or set aside. When an order is vacated it means that it is no longer valid, even if the reasons that the court originally entered the order were valid reasons at the time.
Once a court decision is made, it is only a subject of appeal. Only the court of appeal can override, overrule or and set aside the earlier decision of a court. The law is that a Court cannot sit on appeal over its own judgement.
However, it can set aside a judgement delivered by it but the following conditions must be seen to be present in the previous judgement sought to be set aside upon application by parties and they are: (a) that the previous judgement is erroneous in law, or (b) that the previous judgement was given per incuriam (which means given in error; or (c) that the previous judgement is contrary to public policy or is occasioning miscarriage of justice or perpetuating injustice. See A-G. Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd (1999) 9 NWLR (pt. 618) 187 at 203.
There are instances where such decision may have been obtained by fraud. Which means where a party has misrepresented facts to the court which informed the court to reach a particular decision in favour of such party, the court, where it is faced with relevant facts depicting the truth would set aside it’s earlier decisions.
This does not operate as an appeal but would be heard by the same court that delivered the earlier judgement. Hypothetically, where Mr A who is the landlord to Mr B has approached the court to evict Mr B but Mr A procured Mr C to impersonate Mr B as the tenant (without serving appropriate notices to Mr B who is the real tenant) and obtains judgement evicting Mr “B”, such judgement would have been obtained by fraud and would be set aside upon application by the real tenant, Mr B.
In general, to vacate a conviction means to set aside the verdict. It is not a common thing but it is necessary. There are generally certain grounds upon which you can seek to vacate a verdict. These reasons typically include: Ineffective assistance of counsel, such as the failure to advise the defendant of a plea deal, breach of a plea agreement, court bias; and juror misconduct.
Of these, ineffective counsel is probably the most common reason for which individuals are able to get their convictions vacated. If the grounds for vacating a verdict do not fit within one of the stated grounds, you may be unable to go through this process. Merely being unhappy with a result is not enough.
Sometimes, court can vacate a ruling which in an ordinary parlance can be called a judgement to people who are not lawyers. For instance, a judgement on injunction is a ruling a court can vacate for some different reasons. We also have different types of injunctions: we have interim injunction and we have interlocutory injunction. So, for an ex parte injunction, it lasts for just about seven days. So after seven days it will expire. In that process that other party must apply to have it set aside.
Beyond that interlocutory injunction, this is an injunction that two lawyers argued before the court prepared it; if the court will vacate such injunction, it would show it was obtained by fraud or there is a mistake.
It is easier to vacate an ex-parte injunction than an interlocutory injunction. But in a life case, it is hypocritical.
A court may vacate its decision under specific circumstances, typically when there is a valid legal or procedural reason to set aside the judgement. These conditions include:
Fraud or Misrepresentation
If the decision was obtained through fraud, deceit, or deliberate misrepresentation, the court may vacate the ruling to ensure justice.
Mistake or Error
A court may vacate a decision if it discovers a significant mistake, such as an error in the application of the law or in the presentation of evidence.
New Evidence
The emergence of new, material evidence that was not available during the original proceedings can justify vacating the decision.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
If a party demonstrates that they received inadequate legal representation, such as failure to present critical arguments or evidence, the court may reconsider the ruling.
Lack of Jurisdiction
If it is found that the court did not have the proper jurisdiction to hear the case, its decision may be vacated.
Breach of Agreement
When a judgment is based on an agreement, such as a plea deal, and one party fails to fulfill their obligations under the agreement, the court may set aside the decision.
Procedural Irregularities
If there were significant procedural errors during the trial, such as a violation of due process, this could be grounds for vacating the decision.
Change in Law
A substantial change in the applicable law or legal precedent may also lead the court to vacate a prior ruling.
In all cases, the party seeking to vacate the decision must typically file a motion with the court, outlining the specific grounds and providing supporting evidence. Courts assess such requests carefully to balance the need for finality in judgements with the pursuit of justice.