PETER ADEBOYE ODOFIN V JIMOH ONI
June 25, 2025SEA TRUCKS NIGERIA LIMITED V PANYA ANIGBORO
June 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 12701
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 19, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 20/91.
CORAM
ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OKAY ACHIKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. ITUMO ONWE2. ABA NWEDEKE3. OGA ELIGWE4. NWAFOR NWEDE (For themselves and as representing the people of Umuezeaka Mgbo Abakaliki APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant appealed against both a ruling and the final decision. The issue in the ruling had to do with wrongful admission of evidence. The court of appeal failed to consider the issues raised by the appellant.
HELD
The court allowed the appeal and ordered a rehearing.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in his interpretation of section 324(2) (f) of the Criminal Code of Western Nigeria, that a bank manager who gives an overdraft to a customer without the previous approval of his directors steals the bank’s money; 2. Whether the bank’s customer who draws a cheque for an overdraft without the previous approval of the directors and gets the money, steals that money.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FAILURE TO APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY DECISION WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED
Ordinarily, where an appellant failed to appeal against an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial Court within the time prescribed by S.25(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act, he must obtain the leave of court for his appeal to be competent. Where on the other hand, the complaint of the appellant against the ruling is concerned with the wrongful admission of evidence or wrongful rejection of evidence, such an appellant would not require the leave of Court as the ruling appealed against is not regarded as interlocutory decision- Ejiwunmi J.S.C.
DUTY OF COURT TO CONSIDER ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT
It is clearly the duty of an appellate Court to consider the issues set out for determination by the parties before the Court. It is an inescapable duty, and more so where as in this case all the issues required to determine the merit of the case for the appellants had been carefully set down in their brief. – Ejiwunmi J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Ogigie v. Obiyan (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 524) 179 2. Onehi Okobia v. Mamodu Ajanya and Anor (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 554) 3483. Nwokoro v. Onuma (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.136) 22 at p.33C-D.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
