Appeal against final judgment

• Pages: 172-176

172

argument is that since the 5th to 56th respondents were not included in the notice of

appeal, and consequently it was not endorsed with their addresses for service, the

notice of appeal cannot be deemed properly filed. Reference was made to Order 8.

R.2 (1) which says inter alia that a notice of appeal shall state “the exact nature of

the relief sought and the names and addresses of all parties directly affected by the

appeal, and shall be accompanied by a sufficient number of copies for service on all

such parties.” Apart from the point whether it is open to learned counsel for the 3rd

and 4th respondents to this appeal to raise this issue as if on behalf the said 5th to

56th respondents to the petition, it is plain to me that the appellants’ position is that

the 5th to 6th respondents are in the same situation as the appellants, being

unnecessary parties to the petition, and ought not to be bothered with this appeal.

The appellants cannot therefore, be expected to regard them as parties directly

affected by the appeal particularly as they are not seeking in this appeal to have the

5th to 56th struck off the petition. The parties directly affected by the appeal are the

3rd and 4th respondents to the petition (as appellants) and the petitioners (as

respondents). That has been adequately explained in the course of the resolution of

this appeal. I find the preliminary objection to be without merit and overrule it.” Per

Uwaifo, J.C.A., in Buhari v. Yusuf (2003) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 841) 446 at 504 - 505.

(16) APPEAL AGAINST FINAL JUDGMENT

358. Appeal against final order under Section 220(1) of the Constitution.

(1) “An aggrieved party may appeal as of right against a final order under Section

220 (1) of the Constitution without leave as a condition precedent. If a decision is

merely preparatory to a final determination of a pending suit or cause, it is interlocutory,

appealable with leave of Court within the period stipulated in. the relevant statute,

decree or rules.” - Per Ndoma-Egba, J.C.A., in Ayu v. Madugbu Suit No. CA/J/51/

89; (1991) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 171) 93 at 100.

(2) Without any hesitation whatsoever, I say that the order of the Wukari High Court

conveyed in the ruling appealed from is a final order. The re-spondent/appellant

validity exercised his Constitutional right to appeal as of right against it. He does not

require leave to do so as a condition precedent. The objection on that pint is

overruled.” - Per Ndoma-Egba, J.C.A in Ayu v. Madugbu Suit No. CA/J/51/89;

(1991) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.171) 93 at 101.

359. Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution.

“This assumption, in my view, has ignored the fact that by provisions of Statute, to

wit: Section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976, an appeal shall not operate as a

stay of execution a provision that was probably an offspring of the maxim: interest

reipublica ut finis litium (it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation.”

– Per Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C., in A.-G. Anambra State v. Okafor Suit No. S.C.172/

1988; (1992) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 224) 396 at 425.

Paras. 357-359 168