SAIDU ADIO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, KWARA STATE & ORS
(2013)LCN/6637(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 10th day of December, 2013
CA/IL/3/2013
JUSTICES:
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SAIDU ADIO – Appellant(s)
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL, KWARA STATE & ORS – Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT ON WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IS PART OF THE MAIN TRIAL AND NOT AN INTERLOCUTORY DECISION
However, it is unnecessary to go into all that. This is because we consider the interlocutory appeal challenging the refusal to admit evidence as premature. Time does not run against any party on the issue of wrongful admission or refusal to admit evidence. The party is therefore expected to wait until the final determination of the case by the trial Court before exercising his right to appeal.
“A decision made by the trial Court on wrongful admission of evidence or wrongful rejection of evidence is part of the main trial and not an interlocutory decision unless a special case has been made in respect of the issue.”
See Onwe v. Nwa Ogbuinya (2001) 1 SC. (Pt. 1) 22, Ukpo v. Imoke (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1121) P. 90, Statoil Nig. Ltd v. Inducon (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor (2012) LPELR – 7955 (CA). PER AGBO, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT AN APPEAL AGAINST WRONGFUL ADMISSION CONSTITUTES A VALID GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE APPEAL AGAINST A FINAL DECISION
I agree with my learned brother, RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO JCA, in the ruling just delivered that an appeal against wrongful admission or wrongful rejection of document should await the outcome of the trial as it constitutes a valid ground of appeal in the appeal against the final decision and such a decision may be set aside by the appellate court on that premise. See Okobia v. Ajanya (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 554) 348.
The need to discourage the pursuit of interlocutory appeals such as the one at hand was emphasised by the Supreme Court in International Agricultural Industries (Nigeria) Ltd v. Chika Brothers Ltd (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 70 at page 81 where, Obaseki, JSC in his concurring judgment stated that;
“It is therefore necessary to emphasise that parties should not throw to the wind the wisdom of leaving the prosecution of issues or points that can be taken advantageously after the final decision of the High Court till High Court has given its final decision and appeal against the decision lodged.” PER AKEJU, J.C.A.
RAPHAEL CHINWE AGBO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): The appellant as claimant at the trial Court had sought to tender some documents which were rejected by the trial Court.
Dissatisfied with this decision the claimant filed this appeal. The parties exchanged briefs of argument. The 1st and 2nd Respondents issued a notice of preliminary objection and argued same in the Respondent’s brief. The objection is founded on the non-service on the 1st and 2nd Respondents of the appellant’s notice of appeal.
However, it is unnecessary to go into all that. This is because we consider the interlocutory appeal challenging the refusal to admit evidence as premature. Time does not run against any party on the issue of wrongful admission or refusal to admit evidence. The party is therefore expected to wait until the final determination of the case by the trial Court before exercising his right to appeal.
“A decision made by the trial Court on wrongful admission of evidence or wrongful rejection of evidence is part of the main trial and not an interlocutory decision unless a special case has been made in respect of the issue.”
See Onwe v. Nwa Ogbuinya (2001) 1 SC. (Pt. 1) 22, Ukpo v. Imoke (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1121) P. 90, Statoil Nig. Ltd v. Inducon (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor (2012) LPELR – 7955 (CA).
Interlocutory appeals should be discouraged in circumstances such as this as they unnecessarily prolong and frustrate trials in first instance Courts. This appeal can comfortably await the determination of the trial at the High Court.
In the instant case the parties shall return to the trial Court and exercise their right of appeal after the trial Court has determined the suit before it. This appeal is hereby struck out.
There shall be no order as to costs.
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: This appeal emanates from the decision of the trial court to reject documents which the appellant had sought to tender at the trial.
I agree with my learned brother, RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO JCA, in the ruling just delivered that an appeal against wrongful admission or wrongful rejection of document should await the outcome of the trial as it constitutes a valid ground of appeal in the appeal against the final decision and such a decision may be set aside by the appellate court on that premise. See Okobia v. Ajanya (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 554) 348.
The need to discourage the pursuit of interlocutory appeals such as the one at hand was emphasised by the Supreme Court in International Agricultural Industries (Nigeria) Ltd v. Chika Brothers Ltd (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 70 at page 81 where, Obaseki, JSC in his concurring judgment stated that;
“It is therefore necessary to emphasise that parties should not throw to the wind the wisdom of leaving the prosecution of issues or points that can be taken advantageously after the final decision of the High Court till High Court has given its final decision and appeal against the decision lodged.”
For these and fuller reasons contained in the ruling I strike out this appeal and abide by the order returning the parties to the trial court.
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the ruling of my learned brother Raphael, Chikwe Agbo, J.C.A. I agree with the wordings he gave for striking out the appeal. I also strike out the appeal.
I abide by the order as to cost.
Appearances
Dr. Aliyu Salman, SAN with him
Zeenat Shittu For Appellant
AND
S. K. Grillo (Mrs.) Assistant Director, Civil Litigation, Kwara State Ministry of Justice with her
M. A. Onile, Asst. Chief State Counsel,
Medinat Jimoh-Orire, Senior State Counsel and
A. A. Akewukewe, Senior State Counsel – 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Akin Akintoye II with him
Joshua Adebayo and
Femi Olorunfemi – 3rd Respondent. For Respondent
