CORAM
PARTIES
1.D.A. MIGILORE
2.A. MANGILI
3. C.MANGILI
4. T. OKEOWO IN RE MISS C. OGUNDARE
APPELLANTS
METAL CONSTRUCTION (WEST AFRICA) LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL – WHEN GROUND OF APPEAL INVOLVES MIXED LAW AND FACT OR FACTS ALONE – INCOMPETENCE OF WITHOUT THE LEAVE OF COURT.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal is brought against the decision of the court of appeal upholding the decision of the trial court which in exercise of its latitude granted the respondent’s application to set aside the service of originating processes which had been served on the defendants’ solicitor’s (who had acted for them in another suit) rather than the litigant defendants. Still dissatisfied, the appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
In dismissing the appeal and upholding the preliminary objection of the respondent, the Supreme Court found and held that the ground of appeal was that of mixed law and fact which required the leave of court. Since leave was not had and obtained, the ground was incompetent and liable to be struck out.
ISSUES
Whether the ground of appeal was that of law or of mixed law and fact?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN GROUND OF APPEAL CONTANS ISSUES OFMIXED LAW AND FACT
“In such other cases involving the exercise of right of appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts or on facts, leave of the Court of Appeal or of this court is required” (Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC)
CASES CITED
1. Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 7182. Ogbechie v. Onochie (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 23) 4843. Ifediorah v. Ume (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 54. Ojemen v. Momodu II (1983) 1 SCNLR 1885. Obijuru v. Ozims (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) 1676. Ige v. Olunloyo (1984) 1 SCNLR 158, Oke v. Eke (1982) 12 S.C. 2187. Nafiu Rabiu v. Kano State (1980) 8-11 S.C. 1308. Evans v. Bartlam (1937) 2 All ER 6469. Ifediorah v. Ume (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 5.10. U.B.A. Ltd. v. Gmbh (1989)6 S.C. (Pt.1) 22, (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 374.11. Evans v. Bartlam (1937) AC 473
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.