CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ONYEAMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
GEORGE NABHAN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES-RIGHT AND LEAVE TO APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant appealed against a decree nisi in matrimonial causes proceedings without leave of court.
HELD
The court held that from a construction of section 117(2)(a) of the constitution particularly the proviso thereto, a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage is a final decision for the purpose of appeal and therefore leave was not required.
ISSUES
Whether a decree nisi for the dissolution of a marriage is a final decision for the purpose of section 117(2) (a) of the Constitution.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NATURE OF A DECREE NISI
1. ‘A decree nisi cannot be regarded as a final decision for all purposes.’ Per Brett J.S.C
ROLE OF PROVISOS IN INTERPRETING STATUTES
2. ‘Where words are reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning a proviso may show which meaning they were intended to bear’. Per Brett J.S.C
NATURE OF A DECREE NISI
3. ‘If section 117 (2) of the Constitution is read as a whole it is at least open to the court to hold that a final decision for the purpose of paragraph (a) Includes a decree nisi’. Per Brett J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Killowen in R. v. Titterton [1895] 2 Q.B. 67
2. Bank of Toronto v. Lambe (1887) 12 App. Cap. 575
3. Salaman v. Warner and others [1891] 1 O.B. 734, and in In re Crompton (1884) 27 Ch.D. 392
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Constitution of the Federation 1963