AQUA LIMITED V. ONDO STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
| Pages | 22-52 |
22
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1988] 3 N.S.C.C.
b
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the applicants have
shown that they had sufficient interest in the land in dispute to enable them
obtain leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal."
The short answer to the above Issue is that the Applicants had enough interest
5
to qualify as unnamed parties or Plaintiffs in the original Writ. This interest did not
abate or cease when named Plaintiffs appealed. The interest continued.
The foregoing were the reasons why I dismissed this appeal on the 20th day of
June, 1988. In the final result and for all the reasons given above and also for the ful-
ler reasons in the lead Reasons for judgment of my learned brother Belgore, J.S.C.,
10
the appeal stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed
15
AQUA LIMITED V. ONDO STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
AQUA LIMITED
APPELLANT
20
V
ONDO STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
RESPONDENT
SUIT NO. SC 240/1987
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ESO,
J.S.C.
25
NNAMANI,
J.S.C.
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
KARIBI-WHYTE,
J.S.C.
AGBAJE,
J.S.C.
WALT,
J.S.C.
30
CRAIG,
J.S.C.
4th November, 1988
Practice and Procedure - Appeals (Civil) - Right of appeal against final decision of High
Court at First instance - Whether leave required - Supreme Court and Court of Appeal -
Powers on appeal - Distinction - Relevance of grounds of appeal to filing of notice of
appeal.
Interpretation of Statutes - Sections 220(1)(a), 220( 1)(b), 221(1), 222(b) of 1979
Constitution - Meaning and extent - Construction of statutes - Duty of court - Generalia
specialibus non derogant - Applicability to s.220( 1) of 1979 Constitution.
Words and Phrases - 'Subject to' - Meaning of
ISSUES:
1.
What is the proper meaning and extent of section 220(1)(a) of the 1979
Constitution dealing with right of appeal?
2.
What is the proper meaning and extent of section 220(1)(b) of the 1979
Constitution of Nigeria?
3.
What is the proper meaning and extent of section 221(1) of the 1979 Constitution
of Nigeria?
4.
(a) What is the proper meaning and extent of section 222(b) of the 1979 Con-
stitution of Nigeria?
35
40
45
50
AQUA LIMITED V. ONDO STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
23
(b) Whether a right conferred by the constitution can be taken away by the pro-
vision of a subordinate law.
5.
Whether grounds of appeal have to be considered in filing a notice of appeal.
6.
Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the final
5
decision of the High Court sitting as a court of first instance on grounds which
involve questions of fact or mixed law and fact without leave having been obtained
from either the High Court of trial or the Court of Appeal itself. i.e.
7.
Whether an appeal against a final judgment given by a High Court in a civil case
and sitting at first instance on grounds of mixed law and facts alone, falls under
10
section 220(1)(a) of the 1979 Constitution and therefore lies as of right or section
221(1) of the 1979 Constitution in which case leave of the High Court or the Court
of Appeal to bring it is a pre- requisite.
8.
What is the duty of a court in construing a written instrument or statute?
15
9. Whether there is a distinction between the powers of the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeal on appeal.
10. Whether the maxim,
'generalia specialibus non derogant'
applies to the
provisions of S.220 (1)(a) Land s.220(1)(b) of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria.
FACTS:
20
The plaintiff, Aqua Ltd. instituted an action against the Ondo State Sports Coun-
cil in the Ondo State High Court claiming the sum of N68,357.94 being money owing
and due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The learned trial judge after considering
the evidence gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant then appealed
on six grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal whereupon the plaintiff raised a pre-
25
liminary objection contending that the defendant's appeal before the court was in-
competent as no leave was sought or obtained by the defendant to appeal on
grounds of appeal involving questions of fact and mixed law and facts.
The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no substance in the preliminary objec-
tion and stated that s.220(1) of the 1979 Constitution gives a right of appeal as of
30
right to a party from a final decision of a High Court sitting as a court of first instance
without leave, whether the grounds are law, facts, or mixed law and facts.
The plaintiff thus appealed to the Supreme Court contending
inter alia,
that the
Court of Appeal failed to direct itself to the legal point that section 220(1) and 221(1)
of the 1979 Constitution, read together with the provision of s.222(b) of the 1979
35
Constitution creates two separate rights of appeal in respect of a final decision of
the High Court sitting at first instance. It was also contended that the Court of Ap-
peal erred in law in dismissing their (the plaintiff's) preliminary objection and in fail-
ing to strike
out
the defendant's appeal on ground of incompetence.
HELD:
40
1.
Section 220 of the 1979 Constitui ion provides a general right of appeal from the
High Court to the Court of Appeal in eleven instances.
Under s.220(1)(a), all that is required before a person exercises his right to
appeal is that the decision being appealed against is a final decision of a High
Court sitting as a court of first instance. It does not matter whether the grounds
45
of appeal involve law, facts or mixed law and facts. By virtue of section 220(1) (a)
a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal as of right from a final decision
of the High Court exercising original jurisdiction enures to a litigant in both civil
and criminal proceedings irrespective of the nature of the grounds of appeal.
2. Section 220(1)(b) however caters for appeals in interlocutory decisions (i.e.
50
non-final decisions) as well as in double - appeals (decisions given by High Court
when not sitting as a court of first instance) where the grounds of appeal involve
questions of law alone. A litigant in these instances has an automatic right of
appeal to the Court of Appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial