Nigeria’s legal community has been thrown into intense debate following a dramatic post-judgment development at the Supreme Court, where the apex court revised key components of its own earlier decision in the long-running Sagecom Concepts Limited v. Fidelity Bank Plc & Anor dispute.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court altered aspects of its judgment of April 11, 2025, which was previously final and conclusive, thereby changing the financial implications of the case in favor of Fidelity Bank Plc.
The move has triggered widespread concern among senior lawyers, academics, and court watchers, many of whom describe the development as unprecedented and troubling.
Background of the Sagecom Case
The dispute traces its roots to 2011, when Sagecom Concepts Limited instituted Suit No. LD/1734/2011 at the High Court of Lagos State against G. Cappa Plc and Fidelity Bank Plc. The case centred on possession of a prime Ikoyi property and claims for extensive special damages representing lost rental income.
Sagecom claimed that multiple flats and penthouses within the property generated annual rents ranging between US$30,000 and US$67,500, covering periods from November 2005 to June 2011. The company sought conversion of these dollar-denominated sums to Naira at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) official exchange rate prevailing on the date of actual payment, alongside interest at a daily compounded rate of 19.5% per annum.
The High Court ruled in Sagecom’s favour. That judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in 2021 (CA/L/494/2018), and again by the Supreme Court in April 2025 (SC/CV/1602/2021), effectively exhausting Fidelity Bank’s appellate options.
Post-Judgment Twist at the Supreme Court
Despite the apparent finality of the April 2025 decision, Fidelity Bank returned to the Supreme Court with a post-judgment application, now represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, seeking what it described as “clarifications” on the computation of the judgment sum.
In a stunning turn, the Supreme Court granted the application and revised two critical elements of the judgment:
- Interest Rate:
The court changed the award from 19.5% daily compounded interest per annum to 19.5% per annum (simple interest). - Exchange Rate:
The court substituted the exchange rate applicable at the time of actual payment (approximately ₦1,600/$ in April 2025) with the 2018 exchange rate of about ₦305/$, drastically reducing the naira value of the judgment debt.
These revisions departed from the reliefs claimed by Sagecom and from the consistent findings of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court’s own earlier judgment.
Legal Community Reacts
Senior lawyers who spoke to LegalLinkz expressed shock and disbelief. One described the scenario as a “legal impossibility,” citing Order 20 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024, which restricts the apex court from reviewing or varying its judgments except to correct clerical errors or accidental slips.
The rule expressly provides that a judgment “shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Court decided, nor shall the operative and substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted.”
Many commentators argue that altering the interest structure and exchange rate goes beyond clarification and amounts to a substantive variation of the judgment.
Fidelity Bank’s Position
Reacting to the controversy, Meksley Nwagboh, Divisional Head of Brand and Communications at Fidelity Bank Plc, confirmed that the bank authorised the post-judgment application. He maintained that the application was not intended to reopen the case but to clarify ambiguities relating to computation, interest application, exchange rate, and currency of payment.
According to him, Fidelity Bank had accepted liability but required judicial clarity to ensure “faithful and accurate compliance” with the judgment. He argued that daily compounding of 19.5% interest was inconsistent with commercial reality and banking practice, and that the Supreme Court acted within its powers to clarify its intention.
Nwagboh further denied that the engagement of Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, was strategic or unusual, insisting it was part of the bank’s broader legal representation.
A Test for Judicial Finality
The development has reignited debate around the finality of Supreme Court judgments, judicial consistency, and the thin line between clarification and review. For many observers, the case raises profound constitutional and institutional questions about certainty in commercial litigation and public confidence in the justice system.
As reactions continue to pour in, the Sagecom–Fidelity Bank saga is fast becoming one of the most consequential judicial controversies in recent Nigerian legal history.
Related:
