Godfrey Ugwuh V. Attorney-general, East-central State & Anor. (1975)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. B. A. Coker, J.S.C.

applicants have applied to this Court by way of Motion for –

“Leave of the Supreme Court to appeal against the Order of the Enugu High Court dated 5th August, 1974 and for such further or other orders as the Supreme Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

AND further take notice that the grounds of this application are:-

1. The respondents/applicants were dissatisfied with the order of Enugu High Court dated 5th August, 1974 in the above suit granting the applicant/respondent leave to apply out of time for an order of certiorari.
2. The respondents/applicants, on the 7th day of August, 1974, applied to the Enugu High Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but the Honourable Court, on the 11th November, 1974, made an order refusing leave.
3. The proposed grounds of appeal are contained in Exhibit ‘C’ attached to this motion.”

There is an affidavit of the Deputy Solicitor-General East -Central State in support of the Motion and as that affidavit tells the whole story, we reproduce the important paragraphs of it as follows:-

“1. That I was the counsel for the respondents in the above matter which was an application for an extension of time by the applicant in the above matter within which to apply for an order of certiorari.

XXX

3. That the Honourable Court after hearing arguments from both sides on the 22nd day of July, 1974 made the order sought by the applicant in the above matter the certified copy of the proceedings and the order on the application is annexed hereto and marked Exhibit ‘A’.
4. That the respondents in the above matter, now the applicants, being dissatisfied with the said order and being desirous to appeal against the same to the Supreme Court, applied on the 17th day of August, 1974, to the Enugu High Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

XXX

7. That the respondents in the above matter now the applicants are dissatisfied with the said order and desire to apply to the Supreme court for leave to appeal against the order of the Enugu High Court dated 5th August, 1974.”

Thus, it is obvious that the applicants are asking for leave of this Court to appeal against an interlocutory order and, as observed by the learned trial Judge who made the order in question –

“The purpose of the present application on notice to the parties is, therefore, to ask the court to enlarge the time stipulated in Order XXII Rule 2 of the High Court Rules to enable the applicant apply for leave ex parte.”

It appears that after the learned trial Judge had granted the application of the respondent, extending the time within which he could apply for the order which he had sought, the applicants applied to the same court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and that the application of the present applicants was then refused by the learned trial Judge. The order sought to be appealed was made on the 5th August, 1974, and leave to appeal therefrom was refused to the present applicants on the 11th November, 1974.

The application before this Court now is dated the 23rd November, 1974 and when it first came before us on the 13th January, 1975, we observed that the application was being made ex parte and directed that the respondent should be put on notice. He was apparently thereafter served with a copy of the application and in due course he filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection pursuant to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and in the following terms:-

“TAKE NOTICE that the respondent herein named intends, at the hearing of this appeal, to rely upon the following preliminary objection notice whereof is hereby given to you, viz:-

AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds of the said objection are as follows:-