This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in Port-Harcourt. The appellant commenced suit No. FHC/PH/322/03: National Inland waterways Authority v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited at the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division via an originating summons dated 12th May, 2004. Upon conclusion of argument on the originating summons, the Federal High Court delivered judgment on 22nd day of April, 2005 wherein the Court granted the reliefs sought by the appellant in part. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal High Court, the respondent (as defendant) appealed to the Court of Appeal against the said judgment except the part holding that there were irreconcilable conflict in the affidavit of the parties. The appellant herein (as plaintiff) cross-appealed against part of the judgment of the Federal High Court. After briefs were filed and exchanged, the appellant as cross-appellant at the Court of Appeal realized that he ought to have obtained leave before filing the cross appeal. He then filed a Motion on Notice on 28/3/06 for trinity Prayers. In its ruling on 10th July, 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-appellant's motion for lacking in merit. Thereafter, the appellant filed a similar motion dated 20th January, 2007 praying for the same reliefs as the one earlier dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, in a ruling delivered on the 7th November, 2007, struck out the Appellant's application on the ground that the trinity prayers made in the application dated 20th January, 2007 were similar to those made in the previous application dated 28th March, 2006 which was earlier refused by the Court. It also held that the Court had become functus officio after its ruling of 10th July, 2006 refusing the earlier application, It then adjudged the motion an abuse of Court process. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

INYANG OKORO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On the whole, the Court in a majority decision (with Hon. Justice Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili J.S.C. dissenting) allowed the appeal in part. The Court ordered that the appeal before the Court of Appeal be heard on the merit based on the two competent grounds 3 and 4 in the notice of appeal. Grounds 1 and 2 relating to interlocutory decision was held to remain incompetent as decided by the Court of Appeal. Part of the decision of the Court of Appeal holding that appellant's notice of appeal was void ab initio was set aside.

ADEYINKA ADEREMI, ESQ , with him, IDODE OLAJIDE and OSEFAN ANEGBE, ESQ. For Appellant(s) CHIEF (MRS) A. WILLIAM AKINJIDE SAN , with him, E. OSAGIE, ESQ. For Respondent(s)

APPEAL - LEAVE OF COURT/LEAVE TO APPEAL - Whether the granting of leave to appeal is not sufficient to cure the defect in a notice of appeal that had earlier been filed without leave having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Williams v. Mokwe

APPEAL – LEAVE OF COURT/LEAVE TO APPEAL – Whether the granting of leave to appeal is not sufficient to cure the defect in a notice of appeal that had earlier been filed without leave having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Williams v. Mokwe

PRINCIPLE

SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED! Log In or Register Now

Dear Esteemed Visitor

Thank you for your interest in LawCompass™. Unfortunately, you are currently logged out. To access our exclusive repository of premium legal insights, please Log In to your account.

If you’re not yet a premium member, consider Registering Now for unlimited access to our extensive collection of Cases, Laws, Rules/Forms, and more.

Best regards, LawCompass™.

You are here:

Home
PRINCIPLE
APPEAL – LEAVE OF COURT/LEAVE TO APPEAL – Whether the granting of leave to appeal is not sufficient to cure the defect in a notice of appeal that had earlier been filed without leave having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Williams v. Mokwe

My LawKitShare

No bookmark found

APPEAL – LEAVE OF COURT/LEAVE TO APPEAL – Whether the granting of leave to appeal is not sufficient to cure the defect in a notice of appeal that had earlier been filed without leave having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Williams v. Mokwe

See Also:

Table of Contents

My LawKitShare