CORAM

PARTIES

THOR LIMITED APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant appealed on grounds of mixed law and fact without leave.

HELD

The appeal was struck out.

ISSUES

Whether the appellant’s grounds of appeal are competent?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

WHEN LEAVE IS REQUIRED TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

Section 213(2) and (3) of the 1979 Constitution (now Section 233 (2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution) gives a party a right of appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in that by virtue of subsection (2) thereof, a party who is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal has a right of appeal on grounds of appeal which are of law only. Where, however, the ground or grounds of appeal are not of law alone but of mixed law and fact or fact simpliciter, the right of appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court can only be exercised where the aggrieved party has first sought and obtained the leave of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court- Onu J.S.C.

CASES CITED

J. B. Ogbechie & Ors. v. Gabriel Onochie & Ors. (1986) 2 NWLR (Part 23) 484 at page 491Comex Ltd. v. N.A.B. Ltd. (1997) 3 NWLR (Part 496) 625 at page 658 Metal Construction (W.A) Ltd. v. Migliore (1990) 1 NWLR (Part 126) 299 Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Part 67) 718 Coker v. U.B.A. PLC (1997) 2 NWLR (Part 490) 641 at 664

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The 1979 Constitution

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT