EXCLUSIVE:Judicial Abracadabra: Nigeria’s Supreme Court Changes Ruling In Sagecom Case, Rewrites Judgment In Favour Of Fidelity Bank

The saga dates back to 2011 when Sagecom Concepts Limited initiated legal action at the High Court of Lagos State, filing Case No. LD/1734/2011 against G. Cappa Plc as the first defendant and Fidelity Bank Plc as the second defendant.

In a move that has left legal practitioners and industry observers stunned, the Supreme Court of Nigeria on Friday, December 12, 2025, delivered a ruling overturning its April 2025 judgment against Fidelity Bank Plc, a decision previously affirmed by both the High Court of Lagos State and the Court of Appeal.

The saga dates back to 2011 when Sagecom Concepts Limited initiated legal action at the High Court of Lagos State, filing Case No. LD/1734/2011 against G. Cappa Plc as the first defendant and Fidelity Bank Plc as the second defendant.

The company sought possession of a property located in Ikoyi, Lagos, and claimed special damages for rental values of the various units within the property. The claim included annual rents for Flats 1 through 10 and Penthouses 1 and 2, covering periods between November 2005 and June 2011.

Specifically, Sagecom alleged that the disclosed annual rental value of Flat 1 was US$60,000, Flat 2 was US$33,750, Flat 3 was US$60,000, Flat 4 was US$60,000, Flat 5 was US$30,000, Flat 6 was US$60,000, Flat 7 was US$52,500, Flat 8 was US$33,750, Flat 9 was US$56,250, Flat 10 was US$52,500, and each of the two penthouses was US$67,500 per year.

These amounts were to be converted into Naira at the Central Bank of Nigeria’s official money market exchange rate prevailing on the date of actual payment.

The claims were structured so that the amounts were sought against Fidelity Bank alone for the periods before June 21, 2011, and jointly and severally against both defendants from June 21, 2011 onwards, either until possession was yielded to the claimant or until the expiration of the remainder of the 25-year lease that had commenced on January 1, 2001, whichever came first.

On top of the rental claims, Sagecom also demanded interest on the annual rental amounts at a daily compounded rate of 19.5% per annum, calculated from the respective yearly due dates until full payment was made.

The lawsuit thus combined a demand for the immediate return of the property with detailed financial claims reflecting the rental values of each unit and compounded interest, creating a comprehensive claim for damages against the defendants.

The company also sought payment of substantial special damages related to the rental value of flats within the property, claiming the following: Annual rents ranging from US$30,000 to US$67,500 per flat and penthouse, from 2005 to 2011, converted to Naira at the prevailing Central Bank exchange rates and interest on these amounts at a daily compounded rate of 19.5% per annum until actual payment.

Fidelity Bank, dissatisfied with the High Court judgment, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division which in a judgment delivered in 2021 in Appeal case No. CA/L/494/2018 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the High Court Judgment.

Still dissatisfied, Fidelity Bank appealed further to the Supreme Court in Appeal case No. SC/CV/1602/2021. On 11th April 2025, the Supreme Court also dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the judgment.

At this stage, Fidelity was represented by a team of senior lawyers led by former Federal Attorney General Kanu Agabi, SAN and Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN, while on the other side for Sagecom was Muiz Banire, SAN and Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN.

Fidelity Bank Hires Wole Olanipekun, SAN

SaharaReporters learnt that it was after this that Fidelity Bank Plc employed the services of Wole Olanipekun, SAN to return to the Supreme Court with an application to change the terms of the judgment to suit Fidelity Bank.

It is worth recalling that in 2021, the Supreme Court had strongly rebuked and fined Olanipekun for attempting a similar manoeuvre to rewrite and alter a court judgment in the Bayelsa Governorship election case of Degi-Eremiyo v. P.D.P.

More recently, he was involved in another controversy when a partner from his law firm wrote to Saipem Contracting Nigeria Limited, requesting to replace the firm representing the company in a multi-million-dollar dispute, arguing that Olanipekun’s involvement “would significantly switch things” in Saipem’s favour.

Fidelity Bank appears to have taken this approach to heart, engaging Olanipekun to “switch things” in its favor after the Supreme Court had already delivered its final judgment in the Sagecom case.

Supreme Court Changes Judgment

In a dramatic twist, the Supreme Court, in the ruling just delivered obliged the application and changed the terms of the judgment. Contrary to the judgment of the High Court which was affirmed by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court which awarded the claim for interest at daily compounded rate of 19.5% per annum, the ruling changed it to 19.5% per annum.

Also contrary to the claim and award in all the judgments for the conversion of the dollar amounts to Naira at the official exchange rate prevailing on the date of actual payment (which was about N1,600 in April 2025) was changed to the rate of exchange in 2018 (N305).

Legal Community Expresses Shock

SaharaReporters spoke to some senior lawyers who expressed disbelief when informed we sought their opinion on the development.

One demanded to first see a copy of the ruling before commenting further because “that scenario is a legal impossibility”.

He pointed SaharaReporters to Order 20(4) of the 2024 Rules of the Supreme Court which says, “The Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.

“A judgment or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Court decided noir shall the operative and substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted.”

When contacted for comment, Meksley Nwagboh, Fidelity Bank’s Divisional Head of Brand and Communications, confirmed that the bank authorised the filing of post-judgement application.

He said, “Yes. Fidelity Bank authorised the filing of the post-judgment application. The application was not intended to alter or reopen the judgment of the Supreme Court, but rather to seek clarification on specific aspects of the judgment to enable faithful and accurate compliance.

“In particular, the Bank required clarity on the proper computation of the judgment sum, including the applicable interest rate, exchange rate, and currency of payment. These clarifications were necessary to ensure that the judgment was executed strictly in line with the Supreme Court’s intention and without introducing computational errors.”

When asked on what legal basis Fidelity Bank returned to the Supreme Court after its appeal had been conclusively dismissed, he responded, “Following the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment affirming the decisions of the lower courts, Fidelity Bank accepted the judgment and its obligation to pay. However, the Bank encountered significant ambiguities regarding how the judgment sum was to be calculated.

“Specifically, clarification was required on: Whether interest was to be applied at 19.5% per annum or per day; the appropriate exchange rate to be applied, and whether the judgment debt was payable in Naira or United States Dollars.

“These issues were not matters of substantive review but of interpretation and implementation. Under Order 20(4) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Court retains jurisdiction to clarify, correct, or explain its judgment where necessary to give effect to its true intention. Fidelity Bank’s application fell squarely within that jurisdiction.”

Meksley claimed the engagement of Olanipekun, SAN, was not strategic, saying, “Fidelity Bank was represented by a team of external legal advisers on the matter, of which Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, was one. His engagement was neither exceptional nor isolated.

“All counsel involved were retained to provide professional legal services to the Bank in accordance with standard practice. There was no special or unusual mandate, and the post-judgment application was handled as part of the Bank’s overall legal representation on the case.”

He further said, “The decision of the Supreme Court is consistent and within the authority of the Supreme Court to clarify its judgment.

“Fidelity approached the Supreme Court with the post judgment application in exercise of her rights as a corporate citizen to approach the courts, being aggrieved with the interpretation given to the earlier judgment by the Claimants.

“The concept of daily compounding of a 19.5% interest rate was clearly inconsistent with established banking practice and commercial reality, and its correction was necessary to reflect the Court’s true intention. Similarly, the adoption of the exchange rate at the date of the judgement aligns with the Supreme Court’s own reasoning in Anibaba v. Dana Airlines.

“The Court did not vary its judgment; it clarified computational ambiguities to ensure accuracy, consistency, and fairness in execution.”

“The clarification issued by the Supreme Court does not undermine the principle of finality, nor does it extinguish Fidelity Bank’s liability. The Bank had long accepted responsibility for the obligation arising from the legacy transaction inherited from FSB International Bank following the 2005 merger,” he added.

“What the Bank sought, was clarity on the correct basis for computation, not a reopening of the case. The judgment itself remains intact.

“The Supreme Court’s clarification actually brings finality to prolonged litigation, dispels speculative figures previously circulated in some quarters, and confirms a liability that aligns with established legal and financial principles. This ensures that the judgment is enforced precisely as intended by the Court.”

Efforts to obtain a reaction from Wole Olanipekun & Co. were unsuccessful, as a promised response had not materialised by press time.