Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Amoo V. Alabi (2003) CLR 7(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 11th 2003

Brief

  • Appeals against final and interlocutory decision
  • Extension of time to appeal
  • Time stipulated for appeal
  • Fair hearing
  • Jurisdiction

Facts

This an appeal from the Ruling delivered by the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, on the 28th of September, 1999 in appeal No. CA/1/M. 70/97 within the Court of Appeal, [ONALAJA ADAMU AND TABAI JJCA] granted the Respondents’ application by striking out the two Notices of Appeal dated the 27th day of June 1996 and 4th July 1996 filed by the Appellants herein suit No. HSK/48/91 respectively at the registry of the Court of Appeal and the High Court Registry, Saki, Oyo State., as being incompetent as same were filed outside the time prescribed by Section 25(2) of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap, 75 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. But before the consideration of the grounds of Appeal herein and the issues distilled there from it is convenient at this stage to sketch out the background facts.

The Respondents herein were the Plaintiffs in suit No. HOY/48.91 later transferred to Saki Division, Oyo State and renumbered HSK/48/91. On the said suit, the claims were against the Appellants herein has the Defendants. Immediately the Statement of Claim was served on the Defendants, the Defendants file a Motion on Notice praying the Court to strike out the suit against them on the ground, amongst others, that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By a Ruling delivered on the 15th of June, 1992, the Defendants’ application was dismissed by the trial Court. The Defendants being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the trial Court filed a Notice of Appeal on the 24th of June, 1992 without seeking and obtaining leave of either the High Court or the Court of Appeal. It should be mentioned that the grounds were mixed law and facts. Based on the purported Notice of Appeal, the Defendants also filed a on Notice praying the trial Court to stay the proceedings in the suit pending the determination of the Appeal. In the interval, Saki Judicial Division was created out of the Oyo Judicial Division and the main suit was transferred to the new Saki Judicial Division as HSK/48/91. The Defendants’ application for stay of proceedings was argued and refused on the grounds that the leave of either the High Court of Appeal was not sought and obtained before filing the Notice of Appeal relied upon by the Defendants as the basis for the application for stay of the proceedings, the grounds of appeal being of mixed law and facts. After some futile attempts, the Defendants on the 2/12/1993 filed an application praying amongst other reliefs, for an extension of time within which to appeal against the ruling delivered on the 15/6/1992, leave to appeal. By a ruling delivered by the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division on 21/2/1994, the Court refused the said application. The Defendants felt unhappy with the Ruling refusing leave to appeal, appealed to this Court in appeal No. SC. 49/1999 and by the judgment of this Court delivered on the 2.4/1996, the Defendant’s appeal was allowed.

The said application was filed at the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division on the 28/5/1997. The Defendants filed a Notice to rely upon preliminary objection to the hearing of the Plaintiffs’ application, the grounds of the objection were:-

  • 1
    The Court below lacked the jurisdiction “to entertain the application in as much as the appeal has not been entered.” and (2) The application was not made to the Court below through there “are no special circumstances which make it impossible or impracticable to apply to the Court below.”
    • 2
      The application was not made to the Court below through there “are no special circumstances which make it impossible or impracticable to apply to the Court below.”
    • The Court below on the 28th of September, 1999 after hearing the argument of counsel decided that the two Notices of Appeal filed by the defendants were incompetent and the two notices were consequently struck out.

      The Defendants/Appellants were dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal and consequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Issues

    • 1
      Whether there was breach of the Appellants’ constitutional right to be...
    • Read More