Supreme Court slams Nigerian lawyer with ₦50m fine over ‘vexatious’ appeal
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has delivered a scathing assessment of a legal practitioner, S.M. Danyaro, describing his conduct before the apex court as “uncultured,” “juvenile,” and a gross abuse of the judicial process.
In a Certified True Copy of a ruling signed on June 22, 2026, the apex court dismissed a post-judgment application filed by Danyaro, labeling it an irresponsible attempt to litigate a matter that had already been laid to rest.
The harsh penalties
In an unprecedented move to curb the abuse of court processes, the Supreme Court imposed severe financial and professional sanctions directly on the lawyer.
READ ALSO: Over 70% of eligible NNPC staff set to exit in massive workforce restructuring
Danyaro was ordered to pay a personal cost of ₦50,000,000 to the respondents within 90 days.
The court directed that Danyaro be stripped of his right of audience in any Nigerian court until he fully complies with the financial penalty.
To resume practice, the lawyer must file a formal certificate of compliance in accordance with Order 12 Rules 4(d), 6, and 7 of the Supreme Court Rules.
”Not worthy of the own“
The ruling, which followed the lead judgment of Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JSC, was heavily amplified by Justice Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme, Ph.D, who did not mince words regarding Danyaro’s professional conduct.
According to Justice Nwosu-Iheme, the application ranks among the worst ever brought before Nigeria’s highest judiciary.
“I agree entirely with the reasoning and abide the conclusion in the lead Ruling that this Application is one of the most thoughtless and irresponsible Applications ever brought before this Court,” Justice Nwosu-Iheme declared.
She noted that the application was disguised as a review but was actually a malicious reaction to an earlier judgment delivered on June 4, 2025, in Appeal No. SC.266/2017.
“In the process of bringing this Application under the guise of a review, counsel degenerated to a level unprecedented in the history of application for review in this Court and ended up not only exposing his ignorance and poor knowledge of the law, but making a mockery of himself as a legal practitioner. He is not worthy to be called a Legal Practitioner.”
The Supreme Court reiterated that its decisions are final and binding, warning legal practitioners against using frivolous applications to cause annoyance or waste judicial time.
The justice concluded that the application was completely “bereft of common sense,” affirming that the original 2025 judgment remains subsisting and unshakeable.
“It will haunt the said Counsel for the rest of his career as a Legal Practitioner for being oblivious of the consequences of his action,” the Justice ruled.
