OJORA & ORS V. ODUNSI

• Pages: 34-39

34



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

OJORA & ORS V. ODUNSI



5

1.

AMINU AKINDELE AJAYI OJORA

2.

AKINWUNMI ESUROMBI ARO



APPELLANTS

3.

OKE ESUROMBI ARO



10

V

LASISI AJIBOLA ODUNSI



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 403/1962

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.



15

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

MORGAN,



Ag. J.S.C.

6th March, 1964

Legislation - Supreme Court Rules, 1961, O.I. R.5, 0.7. R.3, R.37.



20

Appeals to Supreme Court - Civil cases -Interlocutory orders - Motion for

attachment for contempt - Order for costs - Limited leave to appeal from

interlocutory order - Extension of time for appeal - Application straight to

Supreme Court.



25

ISSUES:

1.

Must leave of court be obtained before an appeal will lie from an interlocutory

order?

2.

When is an order final and when is it interlocutory?



30

3.

Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant an extension of time

in which to appeal?

FACTS:

The Plaintiff moved the High Court for attachment of the defendants for disobe-

dience to the order of the Federal Supreme Court to file accounts made against



35

them in a previous judgment on appeal, in which judgment was given determining

the rights in issue between the parties. The defendants did not file the accounts in

time but did so belatedly. The High Court Judge said that they were in contempt

and ordered them to pay punitive costs on the plaintiff's request. The defendants

appealed promptly without leave, treating the order on the motion for attachment



40

as a final order. The plaintiff gave notice that he would object because no leave

was obtained to appeal from the interlocutory order, and the defendants whilst ar-

guing that it was a final decision, applied for leave to appeal

ex majore coutela

and for extension of time for appeal. The plaintiffs objected that the defendants

should have first applied to the High Court for leave to appeal, but the time allowed



45

for applying to the High Court had expired.

HELD:

1.

The order made on the motion for attachment did not determine the rights of

the parties, but related to the disobedience of the defendants to the order to

file accounts made in the judgement which determined those rights, the order



50

was interlocutory, and leave to appeal was required.

2.

As it is only the Supreme Court which can extend the time for appeal; as the

delay in asking for leave to appeal was due to a pardonable mistake of law;

and as the costs awarded in the High Court seemed inordinate and may have