This court held in Ihejirika & Ors v Iheanacho & Anor (2018) LPELR – 44821(CA) on Whether leave of Court is required to appeal against an interlocutory decision out of time and effect of failure to obtain such leave thus;
“The appellant filed two notices of appeal, one on 22-2-17 and the other on 17-3-17. In arguing the appeal, appellant’s counsel emphatically informed the Court that the appeal is founded on the notice filed on 17-3-17 which is contained at pages 88 to 94 of the record of appeal. He admitted that he did not obtain leave of Court to file his notice of appeal after 14 days because the ruling was a final decision of the trial Court.
The Respondent urged the Court to hold that the notice of appeal was incompetent having been filed more than 14 days after the delivery of the ruling being appealed against. S. 24(2) of the Court of Appeal Act reads as follows: (2) The periods for the giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are:- (a) In appeal in civil cause or matter, fourteen days where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision and three months where the appeal is against a final decision.
The Supreme Court per Karibi-Whyte, JSC in Igunbor vs. Afolabi (2001) NWLR (pt.723) 148 in very clear terms set out the distinction between an interlocutory and final order or judgment when he said “A final order or judgment at law is one which brings to an end the rights of the parties in the action. It disposes of the subject matter of the controversy or determines the litigation as to all the parties on the merits. On the other hand, an interlocutory order or judgment is one given in the process of the action or cause, which is only intermediate and does not finally determine the rights of the parties in the action.
It is an order which determines some preliminary or subordinate issue or settles some steps or question but does not adjudicate the rights of the parties, in the action. However, where the order made finally determines the rights of the parties as to the particular issue disputed, it is a final order even if arising from an interlocutory application.” See also Ebokam vs. Ekwenibe & Sons Trading Co. (1999) 10 NWLR (pt. 622) 242, Alor & Anr. Vs. Ngene & Ors. (2007) 17 NWLR (pt. 1062) 163, Chief Olisa Metu vs. FRN & Anr. (2017) 4 NWLR (pt. 1554) 108, Ogolo vs. Ogolo (2006) 5 NWLR (pt. 972)163.
The ruling being challenged did not determine the rights of the parties in the suit. It is clearly interlocutory. The appellants had only 14 days within which to file their notice of appeal. The appellant’s notice of appeal was filed 31 days after the delivery of the ruling. They did not seek nor obtain extension of time within which to appeal. The notice of appeal filed on 17-3-17 was clearly incompetent. This appeal is struck out for want of competence.”per AGBO, J.C.A (PP. 1-3) PARAS. E-F
PER A.O.OBASEKI- ADEJUMO, J.C.A in JACOB LADIPO .V. SIL CHEMICAL LIMITED & 3 ORS
source: https://legalpediaonline.com/jacob-ladipo-v-sil-chemical-limited-3-ors/
