“I do not agree with the Respondents that the right of appeal is not a personal right vested in them as parties in the suit at the trial Court. That right enures to them to exercise, and it can only be exercised within 90 days or such longer time as the Court may extend. The fact that the Respondents are public officers does not derogate the truth of the matter that as parties to the suit they, like all parties in the suit are at par and do enjoy "the equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law" as assured by Section 17(2)(a) of the Constitution, as amended. They can waive the right conferred on them, as litigants, by law. In the instant case they can waive the right of appeal conferred on them, as litigants and like all other litigants, by Section 241 of the Constitution read together with Section 24(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act. The decision of this Court in Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 14 N.S.C 8, particularly the opinion of Eso, JSC at page 37 thereof, puts the question beyond doubt thus -
The next enquiry is to what extent to which a person could waive rights conferred on him by law? When a right is conferred solely for the benefit of an individual there should be no problem as to the extent to which he could waive such right. The right is for his benefit. He is sui juris. He is under no longer disability. He should be able to forego the right; in otherwords waive it either completely or partially, depending on his choice. The extent to which he has foregone his right would be a matter of fact and each case will depend on its peculiar facts. —- A beneficiary under statute should have full competence to waive those right once the rights are solely for his benefit. The only exception I can think of is where the statute itself forbids waiver of its statutory provisions.

PER E.EKO, J.S.C IN THE CASE OF COUNTY & CITY BRICKS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD VS HON. MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ANOR : LER [2019]SC.239/2011