-
3
That the case is hereby remitted to the Court of Appeal to be determined on the grounds of appeal filed thereat by the Appellant and the issues raised by the parties in their respective briefs of argument.
-
4
That the lower Court shall also determine what to do with the interlocutory appeal filed by the Respondent if it is still pending before it and…
The above order in my respectful view is clear and unambiguous. It needs no interpretation or embellishment whatsoever.
The Appellant, in spite of this clear and unambiguous order, filed a fresh motion on notice in the Court below praying for leave to file additional grounds of appeal and to file another supporting Brief of Argument, i.e. to amend the Appellant's Brief of Argument. The Court below in its considered Ruling delivered on 25th June, 1998, refused the said application, hence the instant appeal.
When this appeal came up for hearing on 8th March, 2010, Obe (Mrs.) - the leading learned Counsel for the Appellant, on her attention being drawn by the Court to the fact that although there are three (3) grounds of appeal, they are four (4) issues for determination, he/she amended their said issues to the effect that issues (a) and (b), will be one issue (a) while issue (c) becomes issue (b) while issue (d) becomes issue (c). The Court noted that the Respondent and the Counsel, were absent although Hearing Notice was sent to them on 29th July, 2009. The Appellant's leading learned Counsel, urged the Court to allow the Appeal and remit back to the Court below, to hear the appeal on their said Amended Brief of Argument. Pursuant to Order 6 Rule 8 (6) of the Rules of this Court, the appeal was deemed argued by the Respondent since the Briefs had been filed and exchanged. Judgment was therefore, reserved till to¬day.
