"Rights of appeal are creation of the Constitution and other relevant statutes. There is nothing such as inherent right of appeal in this country. The Applicant in my considered view undoubtedly has a right of appeal donated to him by the Constitution against the ruling of the lower Court overruling his no case submission; and it would appear clear that in so far as the intended appeal of the Applicant in the circumstances of this case is an interlocutory appeal, he was obligated by law to seek for the trinity prayers having not exercised his right of appeal (irrespective of whether it was as of right or with leave of this Court) within the period of ninety days provided by the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 for appealing against any decision of the lower Court in a criminal matter. See in this regard the concurring judgment of Fabiyi, JSC; in the case of AULT & WIBORG (NIG) LTD V. NIBEL INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR - 639 (SC) wherein his lordship stated thus: -
"It is clear that the parties are at one that the judgment or the trial Court, for which the appellant desired to appeal, was a final decision. The provision of Section 241(1)(b) of the stated 1999 Constitution is applicable to this matter. It provides as follows: - 241(1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases: - (a) final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or High Court sitting at first instance.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted with force that when an appeal is from a final decision in a case or from a decision which has finally decided the rights of the parties in the proceedings in issue, the appeal is brought as of right. I agree with him. That is the correct statement of the law.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx It is more so, since the proposed grounds or appeal involve questions of law alone touching on the legality or interests awarded by the trial Court. Refer to Section 241(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution.
xxxxxxxxxxxx In a final decision, where the rights of the parties have been finally determined, appeal is brought as of right. And where there is a right of appeal, no leave of Court is needed or desirable in my considered view. It seems this goes without saying. The above is often confused with interlocutory appeals wherein the rights of the parties in a case have not been decided upon. A proceeding in an action is said to be interlocutory when it is incidental to the principal object of the action, namely the judgment. An application to appeal after 14 days of such a ruling is guided by Section 25(2) of the Court of Appeal Act (No. 43) 1976. This requires the three usual prayers, often referred to as the trinity. See also Section 31 of the Supreme Court Act (No. 12) of 1960. The three substantive prayers required are: - (i) Extension of time within which to seek leave of appeal, (ii) leave to appeal; and (iii) Extension of time within which to appeal. When leave to appeal is necessary, it must be applied for and duly obtained. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is my considered view, based on decided authorities, no leave was required by the appellant to file the appeal in question as desired.
This is because it is an appeal from the final judgment of the trial High Court which finally determined the rights of the parties. With due respect to the Court below, the applicants application ought not to have been struck out. Enlargement of time to appeal ought to have been granted without much ado in the prevailing circumstances.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" See also the case of PETGAS RESOURCES LTD V. MBANEFO (2017) LPELR - 42760 (SC)."
Per LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.IN AGHOMI v. STATE CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43991(CA)
