Dr Okezie Victor Ikpeazu V. Dr Sampson Uchechukwu Ogah & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A. 

This appeal emanates from the decision of the Federal High court in Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/7112016 coram Hon. Justice Okon Abang delivered on the 27th day of June, 2016. The Appellant herein being clc.ulv dissatisfied with the said Ruling also emanating from the same judgment, on pages 217 to 253 of the record has appealed to this court raising two grounds of appeal to wit:

Ground One:

The learned trial Judge erred in law and came to a perverse decision by holding that Order 4 Rules 10 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 only apply to final and not interlocutory proceedings, and that he still has jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings before him after the Court of Appeal has been fully seised of the entire proceedings.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

(i) The learned trial Judge was without the vires to sit on the interpretation of the Court of Appeal Rules, being Rules of a superior court of record.

(ii) Without prejudice to (i) supra, the interpretation given to Order 4 Rules (10) and (11) of the Court of Appeal Rules by the Lower Court is erroneous and misleading.

(iii) Order 4 (11) of the Court of Appeal Rules does not demarcate/bifurcate final and interlocutory appeals.

(iv) Without prejudice to (iii) supra, there was no interlocutory proceeding pending before the Lower Court.

(v) The Lower Court knew and was duly informed that the record of appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/390/2016 had been transmitted to the Court of Appeal, and a motion, seeking sundry interlocutory reliefs had also been filed before the Court of Appeal.

(vi) The interpretation of Order 4 Rules (10) and (11) embarked upon by the Lower Court was/is unprecedented, and the Lower Court did not support its proposition with any judicial precedent.

(vii) Deliberately, the Lower Court decided to encroach on the exclusive jurisdiction preserved for the Court of Appeal.

The learned trial Judge er.re d in law and came to a perverse decision by holding that Order 4 Rules 10 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 only apply to final and not interlocutory proceedings, and that he still has jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings before him after the Court of Appeal has been fully seised of the entire proceedings.

Ground Two: