Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Biocon Agrochemicals (Nig.) Ltd V. Kudu Holdings Ltd (2000) CLR 12(p) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 15th 2000

Brief

  • Exercise of discretion by lower court
  • Interlocutory appeal
  • Leave to appeal
  • Record of proceedings
  • Issues for determination
  • Stay of proceedings

Facts

The main question raised in this appeal is whether the court below was right to have refused to grant the prayers made to that court by the appellants. For ease of reference, the reliefs sought from the court below be set out hereunder:-

  • 1
    An order granting extension of time within which the applicants and the applicant intervener may apply for leave to appeal against the ruling of Honourable Justice Dolapo Akinsanya delivered in this suit on the 2nd December, 1994.
  • 2
    An order granting leave to the applicant and applicants/intervener to appeal against the said ruling in terms of the proposed notice and grounds of appeal attached to this application as "Exhibit RA2"
  • 3
    An order enlarging the time within which the applicants and applicants/intervener may appeal against the said ruling.
  • 4
    An order staying further proceedings whatsoever and howsoever in this suit at the court of trial pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal herein sought to be entered save power to adjourn the same from time to time in the court of trial unto time until the conclusion of the appeal.
  • 5
    Leave to the applicants and applicant/intervener to depart from the rules of court by personally compiling the records of proceedings in the court of trial for the purpose of the appeal herein sought to be entered.
  • 6
    An order deeming the records of proceedings already compiled duly certified and filed along with this application as Exhibit RA3 as the proper and sufficient records for the purpose of the appeal"

At the hearing of application before the court below, the learned counsel for the appellants withdrew the first prayer, and it was accordingly struck out. The court below also ordered that prayers 4, 5 and 6 be stood over to await the determination of prayers 2 and 3.

After hearing arguments by learned counsel appearing for the parties, their Lordships of the court below who heard the appeal unanimously refused the said prayers 2 & 3 sought for by the applicants. In the course of the lead ruling delivered by Ayoola JCA, as he then was, his Lordship, with regard to the proposed grounds of appeal the appellants, observed thus, and I quote:-

"The grounds of appeal proposed by the defendants and intervener show clearly that they have misunderstood what the claim was about and the nature of payment by letter of credit and rights accruing therefrom. Akinsanya J., had a proper understanding of the issues when she stated thus"

"... whatever right accrues to this applicant (i .e. the intervener) from the plaintiffs, it must await its turn as a separate contract and not be interposed over

Read More