CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF EZEKIEL OLA GUREJEA

---

CHIEF ADEFIOYE ADEDEJI(RISAWE OF ILESA)& ORS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By a Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim, the 1st Respondent commenced this action against the 2nd – 6th Respondents at the High Court of Osun State; wherein he claimed a declaration that the 1st Respondent as the Risawe of Ilesa and a member of the Ijesa Central Traditional Council is entitled to monthly payment of salaries and allowances payable from the monthly 5% deduction from the Ilesa West Local Government Council allocation paid into the Ijesa Traditional Council Account; that the funds can only be disbursed in accordance with the guidelines and the directives contained in the circular letter Ref. CM.58/102 of 26th April 2001; an order for payment to the 1st Respondent of a sum of N3,818,190.00, as balance of his arrears of salaries and allowances payable to the 1st Respondent from the Ijesa Central Traditional Council Account but unlawfully withheld by the Appellant; and perpetual injunction. The Appellant by a motion on motion sought the leave of Court to join him as 6th Defendant in the action on the grounds that 1st Respondent was installed as Risawe of Ilesha by error and which was later corrected by the installation of the Appellant as Risawe of Ilesha. The 1st Respondent opposed the application for joinder by filing a Preliminary objection against same. In its ruling, the trial Court held that the application lacked merit and dismissed it. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court the Appellant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, Akure via his Notice of Appeal containing six Grounds of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Struck Out

---

ISSUES

---

Not Available

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

APPEAL BY AN INTERESTED PARTY – CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL BY AN INTERESTED PARTY

---

“I will first of all take a good look at Section 243 of the 1999 Constitution
243(1) (a &b) Any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from decisions of the Federal High Court or High Court conferred by this Constitution shall be:
a. Exercise in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter, and in the case of criminal proceedings at the instance of an accused person or, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and any powers conferred upon the Attorney-General of the Federation or the Attorney-General of a State to take over and continue or to discontinue such proceedings, at the instance of such other authorities or persons as may be prescribed.
b. Exercised in accordance with any Act of the National Assembly and rules of Court for the time being in force regulating the powers, practice and procedure of the Court of Appeal.
Section 243(1)(a) is the subsection that is apt in this preliminary objection filed by the 1st Respondent. The Appellant applied to the Court below to be joined as interested party but the Court in its wisdom refused that application. Not being party to the suit, the Appellant falls into the second category of person who can appeal. This second category of persons require leave to appeal against the decision of the Court as an interested party. Thus, leave is a condition precedent to the exercise of their right to appeal against the Ruling of the Court below. In the case of A.C.N V Labour Party (2012) LPELR 8003, Akeju JCA held:
that leave simply means permission, and the consideration of an application for leave calls for the exercise of discretion. See Olumegbon V Kareem (2002) FWLR (PT. 107) PG. 1145, Williams V Mokwe (2005) LPELR 3489.
The Appellant was not a party in the Court below. He applied to be joined as party. The application was refused. As soon as that application was refused, the Appellants position became that of a non-party. For him to appeal against the said Ruling, the Appellant ought to seek leave as an interested party to appeal. See SGB Nig. Ind. V Afekoro Ltd (1999) 11 NWLR (PT. 628) PG. 521, Otti V Ogah (2016) LPELR 40846.
It was held in SGB V Afekoro that a person who is not a party in any proceedings in which a decision has been taken by the Court but wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeal against such decision must seek leave of the Court or the Court of Appeal to do so. Chukwu V INEC (2014) 10 NWLR (PT. 1415) PG. 385, Omotesho V Abdullahi (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1072) PG. 526.

---

APPEAL BY AN INTERESTED PARTY – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SEEK THE LEAVE OF COURT TO APPEAL AS AN INTERESTED PARTY

---

“In Assams V Ararume (2015) LPELR 40828 Rhodes-Vivour JSC held as follows:
A person interested in a suit who is not party to the original suit either as a Plaintiff or Defendant cannot launch an appeal in the nature of a party but must obtain the required leave of the Court.
The Appellant in this appeal was not a Plaintiff nor a Defendant in the original suit, therefore he can only appeal as an interested party with the specific leave of Court.
Having not obtained such leave of Court, the appeal instituted against the Respondents is therefore incompetent for failure to satisfy or fulfil the pre-condition of obtaining leave. Okonkwo V UBA (2011) LPELR 23010, Funduk Engineering Ltd. V MC Arthur & Ors. (1996) LPELR 1291, Chukwu V INEC (Supra).-

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Act 2004|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---