TUNJI GOMEZ VS CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM SOCIETY Archives - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

TUNJI GOMEZ VS CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM SOCIETY

Legalpedia Citation: (2009-05) Legalpedia 57156 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri May 8, 2009

Suit Number: SC 67/2005

CORAM


G A OGUNTADE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

N TOBI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

I F OGBUAGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

J O OGEBE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


TUNJI GOMEZ APPELLANTS


1. CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM SOCIETY

2. BOLA ADEWUJA

3. TITLOLA OJIKUTU OSHODE

4. TRUSTEES OF THE CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM SOCIETY

5. REMI BECKLEY

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


None


SUMMARY OF FACTS

Before the Federal High Court Lagos in suit No FHC/4/CS/651/97.The applicants were the plaintiffs. They had brought their suit to challenge the enthronement of two persons who were in succession proposed to be the head of the Cherubim and Seraphim Society.


HELD


APPEAL STRUCK OUT


ISSUES


1.Whether the judgment of the court below was final or interlocutory having regard to section 27(2) (a) of the Supreme Court Act, Cap 515, Laws of the Federation, 2004.?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


G A OGUNTADETHE TEST TO BE USED IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ORDER IS FINAL OR INTERLOCUTORY DEPENDS ON THE ORDER OF WHICH COURT IS BEING CONSIDERED.


“It is to be emphasized here that the test to be used in determining whether an order is final or interlocutory varies depending on the order of which court – the court of trial or an appellate court is being considered. Obviously in the High Court, orders made on applications for extension of time to file processes, applications to serve by substitution, applications for account, etc. are interlocutory in nature and I do not think there is room for difficulty as to their true characterization. This is because whatever orders are made on such application, the particular substantive suit still remains pending before the trial court” PER G. A. OGUNTADE, JSC


ON THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION “INTERLOCUTORY” IN LAW SAME MEANS THAT WHICH SETTLES SOME INTERVENING MATTER RELATING TO THE CAUSE.


“The word “interlocutory” in law means not that which decides the cause, but that which only settles some intervening matter relating to the cause. It also means in the meantime or for now. The word also connotes provisional, interim, temporary, and not final” per Niki – Tobi, JSC


CASES CITED


Alaye ofEffon v. Fasan Isaacs & Sons v. Salbstein & Anor


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Section 258 (1) of the 1979 Constitution


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT