HABIB DISU & ORS VS C. W DANIEL-KALIO
September 4, 2025JOHN APOESHO & ANOR VS CHIEF AWODIYA
September 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1964-03) Legalpedia 25531 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Fri Mar 6, 1964
Suit Number: FSC 403/1962
CORAM
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA
MORGAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
MORGAN JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
AMINU AMINDELE AJAYI OJORA AKINWUNMI ESUROMNI ARO OKE ESUROMI ARO APPELLANTS
LASISI AJIBOLA ODUNSI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW, FAMILY LAND, ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants commenced an appeal without first obtaining leave of court where it was needed to obtain leave
HELD
The Court held that the application before the Court was seeking for rights that were already established and as such was an interlocutory one of which leave of Court is required before an appeal to this Court can be entertained. The Court further ordered that the application for leave to appeal in the Court below is waived and leave to appeal is given in respect of costs only as raised in ground 4 of the grounds of appeal.
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT TO CONSIDER IN DECIDING WHETHER AN ORDER IS FINAL OR INTERLOCUTORY
“What we have to determine is whether “the rights of the parties” are finally determined by the order appealed against”. TAYLOR, J.S.C
EXERCISE OF COURTS DISCRETION IN GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL
“Granting of leave to appeal is not automatic. It is within the discretion of the particular Court to grant or to refuse the application or to grant leave on one or more points of importance and refuse leave generally on facts. It is a discretion which must be judiciously exercised and the Courts ought not to be weighed down by such considerations as the fear, on the part of the Court, to create the impression of unwillingness to have its decision tested in a higher Court”- TAYLOR, J.S.C
EXERCISE OF COURT’S DISCRETION IN GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL
“Granting of leave to appeal is not automatic. It is within the discretion of the particular Court to grant or to refuse the application or to grant leave on one or more points of importance and refuse leave generally on facts. It is a discretion which must be judiciously exercised and the Courts ought not to be weighed down by such considerations as the fear, on the part of the Court, to create the impression of unwillingness to have its decision tested in a higher Court”- TAYLOR, J.S.C
WHAT TO CONSIDER IN DECIDING WHETHER AN ORDER IS FINAL OR INTERLOCUTORY
“What we have to determine is whether “the rights of the parties” are finally determined by the order appealed against”. TAYLOR, J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Wilson v. Rafflalovich 7 Q.B.D. 553 CA. at page 561
2. Ude and Others v. Agu and Others [1961] All N.L.R. 65, 66
3. Blay v. Solomon 12 W.A.C.A. 175.
4. Ex parte Gilchrist In re Armstrong 1886 17 Q.B.D. 521 p. 528
5. Jones v. Biernstein [1900] 1 Q.B. 100
6. Sanderson v. Blyth Theatre Co. [1903] 2 K.B. 533
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Federal Supreme Court Rules
