CHUKWUKA & ORS. V. EZULIKE & ORS.

• Pages: 1347-1359

CHUKWUKA & ORS. V. EZULIKE & ORS.



1347

In the final result and for the reasons given above and for the fuller reasons in

the lead judgment of my learned brother Karibi- Whyte, J.S.C. with which I am in

complete agreement and which I now adopt as mine, I, too, will dismiss this ap-

peal with costs to the defendants/respondents assessed at N300.00.

5



Appeal dismissed.

CHUKWUKA & ORS. V. EZULIKE & ORS.

10

JOHN CHUKWUKA & 10 ORS.

(For themselves and on

15



behalf of the people of

AMAKA-EZEAHA Family of

Ndiakwu-Otolo, Nnewi)

V

NDUBUEZE GREGORY EZULIKE

20



(For himself and on behalf

of EZULIKE Family of

Ndiakwu-Otolo,

Nnewi)

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

25



ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

30 5th December, 1986

APPELLANTS

DEFENDANTS

SUIT NO. SC 173/1986

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Appeal to Supreme Court - Dismissal on

merit under Order 6 rule 9(1) of Supreme Court Rules, 1985 for want of

prosecution in failing to file brief - Finality - Subsequent application for

35



extension of time for leave to appeal and leave to appeal on question other

than those of law - Effect of - Argument that previous appeal on question

invalidly filed without prior leave and

-

dismissal therefore null for want of

jurisdiction to dismiss it - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - review of judgment

- Preclusion under Order 8, rule 16 of Supreme Court Rules, 1985 - Application

40



refused as abuse of process.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the Supreme Court can review its own judgment.

2.

What is the effect of an application for extension of time for leave to appeal and

45



leave to appeal on questions other than those of law,- where the Supreme Court

has already dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Order 6 rule

9(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985?

3.

Whether a dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 6 rule 9(1) of the

Supreme Court Rules 1985 is a dismissal on the merits.

50

FACTS :

The applicants who were defendants in the trial court lost to the plaintiff in an

action for "a declaration of title to the customary right of occupancy, damages for

trespass and an injunction". The defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was

also dismissed. Not satisfied with these two concurrent judgments of the two courts