THE STATE VS DR. OLU ONAGORUWA
July 11, 2025MICHAEL ROMAINE VS CHRISTOPHER ROMAINE
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: 1992-06) Legalpedia 20048 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Jun 5, 1992
Suit Number: S.C.9/1992
CORAM
A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAWU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAEMEKA-AGU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF ONWUKA KALU
APPELLANTS
CHIEF VICTOR ODILI & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was a dispute between the different shareholders as to the quantum of shareholding of individual members. This was settled by the parties in the trial court when the terms of settlement were made a consent judgment. The Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal as a person interested against the order and directions of the Federal High Court
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the application for leave to appeal therefore must be filed in the first instance in the High Court unless the applicant shows that there are special circumstances, such as loss of jurisdiction by effluxion of time, which make it impossible or impracticable to bring the application in the High Court first.
ISSUES
Whether a person who claims to have an interest in the subject matter of civil proceedings before the Federal High Court is entitled to apply directly to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal under section 222(a) of the 1979 Constitution without having applied in the first instance to the Federal High Court for such leave
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal declining (for whatever reason) to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal High Court
RATIONES DECIDENDI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
“The Supreme Court exercises by virtue of section 213 of the Constitution an entirely appellate jurisdiction subject to the original jurisdiction vested in it by section 212 of the Constitution. It is quite correct that the Constitution has vested the determination of the question whether or not to grant leave to appeal to a party interested from a decision of the High Court to that court, or to the Court of Appeal. But the Constitution did not by that deprive the Supreme Court of the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in respect of such matters. The Supreme Court still has jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law under this Constitution to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal. See S.213(1) Constitution 1979. The Federal High Court or the Court of Appeal only exercises jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to “a person interested” in the decision of the Federal High Court. The right of the Supreme Court to exercise its constitutional judicial jurisdiction cannot be removed by mere implication collected from construction or other provisions. Where the jurisdiction is to be excluded, it must be done expressly and unequivocally. The right of appeal is too fundamental to be removed by mere interpretation.” Per KARIBI-WHYTE,. J.S.C
APPEAL BY INTERESTED PARTY NOT A PARTY TO THE SUIT
“A person having interest in the matter not being a party thereto can only exercise right of appeal with the leave of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal. This leave to appeal is distinct from the leave to be obtained by an appellant relying on grounds of facts or mixed law and facts under section 221 of the Constitution. Section 221 is the general case. The requirement of leave under section 222(a) in respect of a person having an interest in the matter is sui generis.” Per KARIBI-WHYTE,. J.S.C
CASES CITED
Deduwa & ors. v. Okorodudu & Ors. (1976) 9 & 10 S.C. 329 at p.341
Doherty v. Balewa (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 604
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979
The Supreme Court Act
The Court of Appeal Act
