CORAM

---

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ruqayat Oremei Ayoola Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

ABDULKARIM (SUING FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF TIL GADAN FAMILY)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. STEPHEN ALU

2. YAKUBU ADAQA

3. MUSA NDIRIKALU

4. IJAFIYA MIJI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION, EXTENSION OF TIME, LEAVE TO APPEAL, MIXED LAW AND FACTS, COURT OF APPEAL RULES, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant filed a Motion on Notice on 17th February 2025, seeking leave to appeal on mixed law and facts against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 29th January 2025 in Appeal No: CA/G/46/2023. The original trial court in Suit No: BOHC/GZ/CV/002/2021 delivered its judgment on 11th March 2022 against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents. The Appellant appealed this decision via Notice of Appeal dated 16th March 2022 and filed on 25th March 2022. The Court of Appeal subsequently delivered its judgment on 29th January 2025, affirming the trial court’s decision against the Appellant.

The Appellant sought two main orders: leave to appeal on mixed law and facts to the Supreme Court, and leave to file Notice and Grounds of Appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The application was supported by a seven-paragraph affidavit and a four-page written address. The Respondents filed a twelve-paragraph counter affidavit and written address on 15th May 2025, but these processes were struck out for being filed outside the time stipulated in Order 6 Rule 1(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021.

During the hearing, counsel for the Appellant admitted that the three-month period to appeal to the Supreme Court as stipulated in Section 27(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Act had expired. The Court of Appeal’s judgment was delivered on 29th January 2025, and by the time the application was heard on 22nd May 2025, the statutory period for filing a Notice of Appeal had lapsed due to court business exigencies.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The application was struck out.

2.The Court held that it lacked jurisdictional competence to grant the application since the time within which to appeal had expired.

3.The Court ruled that for a grant of leave by the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court to be proper and valid, both the application for leave to appeal and the granting of the leave must all be within the statutory period.

4.The Court emphasized that only the Supreme Court can extend the time within which to appeal to it against a decision of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Section 27(4) of the Supreme Court Act.

5.There was no order as to costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the Appellant/Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in extending the time within which to appeal?

2.Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal on mixed law and facts after the statutory period for appealing has expired?

3.Whether the Court of Appeal can grant extension of time to appeal to the Supreme Court?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

---

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Supreme Court Act, Section 27

3. Court of Appeal Rules 2021, Order 6 Rule 1(a)

4. Section 233 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT