PERSON AGGRIEVED IS SYNONYMOUS WITH PERSON HAVING INTEREST

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "It is very clear that Okoko-Opekun ruling house which is the applicant’s is not listed amongst the alleged three ruling houses. Going through the judgment of the lower Court, it is true that the learned trial Judge failed to resolve the issue of the number of ruling houses to Baale of Yaru Chieftaincy particularly in view of the counter claim of the present substantive appellant who was the 4th defendant at the trial. The failure of the learned trial Judge to resolve the issue of the number of ruling houses is a subject of a ground of appeal before this Court. In any event, despite the fact that the learned trial Judge failed to resolve the thorny issue yet he proceeded to declare that is the turn of Akinnuewu Ruling house of Yaru to present a candidate etc. In view of these facts can it still be said that the applicant’s family is not prejudicially affected by the decision of the lower Court? I am of the firm view that the answer is in the negative and I so hold. Is it not very funny that an issue of rotation as to whose turn it is to occupy a stool is determined while the fundamental one of rotation between or amongst who, is left unresolved? In Owena Bank (Nig.) Plc v. N.S.E Ltd (1997) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 515) 1 at 19 The Supreme Court stated the position thus; inter alia: "... for an applicant to be entitled to appeal as ‘a person having an interest in the matter’ under section 222(a) of the 1979 Constitution (which is in pari material with section 243(a) of the 1999 Constitution) he must show not only that he is a person interested but also that the order made prejudicially affects his interest while in Ikonne v. C.O.P Imo State (supra) at 503 the Court went to explain as follows: "The expression "person having interest" has been defined as synonymous with "person aggrieved". ‘person aggrieved’ must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something’." - Per Onnoghen, J.C.A., in In Re: Opekun Suit No. CA/IL/ 15/2001; (2004) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 870) 576 at 590 - 591.

(2) "The law is settled and is obviously an advantageous course that persons interested who wish to question a judgment affecting their interests should be enabled to query the judgment on appeal without going through the elaborate course of starting new proceedings with the necessity of a fresh trial at first instance. See in Re Afolabi (1987) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 63) 18 at 28. But a person who is not a party to a suit and claims that he has an interest in the matter or order made therein and desires to appeal against the decision may do so with the leave of Court under S. 233 of the 1999, Constitution. But such an applicant must show sufficient interest to entitle him to appeal. He must show that the decision he is seeking to appeal against has affected his interest, right or duty. See Akinbinu v. Oseni (1992) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 215) 97. The test to determine whether an interested party can be granted leave to appeal is whether such a person could have been joined as a party to the suit. See Re Madaki (1990) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 143) 266. A person having interest has judicially defined as including a person affected or likely to be affected or aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved. See Harry Akande v. General Electric & Others (1979) 4 S.C. 115. In Re General Electric Co. of USA Nigeria Ltd. (1979) 3 - 4 S.C. 115 at 125, Mbanu v. Mbanu (1961) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 305 (1961) 4 All N.L.R. 652. It is noteworthy that a person aggrieved or a person having interest means a person who has suffered a legal grievance or a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title to something. In Re Mbamalu (supra), it is stressed that an application for leave to appeal as interested party must show that decision has caused him some grief, loss, disadvantage or affected his title, rights or position. See Re Madaki (supra)." - Per Musdapher, J.C.A., (as he then was) in In Re: Ndayako Suit No. CA/A/51/M/2002, (2003) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 809) 42 at 48 - 49.

(3) "In this application, the present applicant was not directly a party in the case, i.e., charge MA/452C/63, but she was a "party interested." And an application for certiorari to quash an inquisition or trial can be made by a party interested - (see the Practice of the Crown Office by Short and Mellor at page 33; see also R. v. South Holland Drainage...