EZENWOSU V. NGONADI

• Pages: 416-428

416



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1992] 1 N.S.C.C.

EZENWOSU V. NGONADI

5

CLEMENT EZNWOSU

V.

AARON NGONADI

IN RE APPLICATION BY

PETER NGONADI

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

DEFENDANT/APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

10

APPEAL No. SC. 274/1989.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA



15

KAWU,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

A KPATA ,



J.S.C.

OMO,



J.S.C.



20

27th March, 1992.

Appeals - Time to appeal to Supreme Court - Extension of - Proper court to grant same -

Whether Court of Appeal Practice Direction No. I of 1989 has any effect thereon -

25

Leave to appeal - Need to obtain same within statutory period.

Practice and Procedure - Court of Appeal Practice Direction No.1 of 1989 - Scope - Action

commenced in name of deceased person - Effect - Interlocutoty judgment and final

judgment - Distinction between.

Words

and Phrases -

"Subject to" - Meaning of

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the Court of Appeal has power to extend time and to grant leave to

appeal to Supreme Court in favour of a party who has run out of the prescribed

statutory period of doing so.

2.

What is the scope of the Court of Appeal Practice Direction No.1 of 1989?

FACTS:

In Suit No. AA/44/73, the plaintiff/respondent, Clement Ezenwosu claimed

against the defendant, Aaron Ngonadi (now deceased) for a declaration of title

and injunction in respect of a parcel of land. On 4/3/77 judgment was delivered in

favour of the respondent/appellant. On 27/4/77 Aaron Ngonadi died.

In 1987 the applicant/respondent (Aaron Ngonadi's son) filed an application in

the Court of Appeal wherein he sought leave to appeal against the judgment of

4/3/77 to the Court of Appeal as an interested party. After hearing the parties on

the application, the Court of Appeal refused the application and dismissed it.

Being dissatisfied, the applicant/respondent filed another application in 1989

before the same court, though slightly differently constituted. In this second

application he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order

refusing him leave to appeal. The application was granted.

30

35

40

45

50