Olu Ogunsola V National Insurance Corporation Of Nigeria (Nicon) (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C.

This case from the Records appears to me to have a long history starting in 1991 when the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, dismissed the Appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the High Court of Oyo State.

Dissatisfied with the said dismissal, the Appellant appealed to this Court and on 9th January, 1996, this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment of the Court of Appeal and remitted the matter back to the said Court of Appeal (hereinafter called the court below”) for re-hearing. It made the following order:

“3. That the case is hereby remitted to the Court of Appeal to be determined on the grounds of appeal filed thereat by the appellant and the issues raised by the parties in their respective briefs of argument.

4. That the lower court shall also determine what to do with the interlocutory appeal filed by the respondent if it is still pending before it and…”.

[the underlining mine]

The above order in my respectful view is clear and unambiguous. It needs no interpretation or embellishment whatsoever.

The Appellant in spite of this clear and unambiguous order, filed a fresh motion on notice in the court below praying for leave to file additional grounds of appeal and to file another supporting Brief of Argument. i.e. to amend the Appellant’s Brief of Argument. The court below in its considered Ruling delivered on 25th June, 1998, refused the said application, hence the instant appeal.

When this appeal came up for hearing on 8th March, 2010, Obe (Mrs.) – the leading learned counsel for the Appellant, on her attention being drawn by the court to the fact that although there are three (3) grounds of appeal, they are four (4) issues for determination, he/she amended their said issues to the effect that issues (a) and (b), will be one issue (a) while issue (c) becomes issue (b) while issue (d) becomes issue (c). The Court noted that the Respondent and the Counsel, were absent although Hearing Notice was sent to them on 29th July, 2009. The Appellant’s leading learned counsel, urged the Court to allow the Appeal and remit back to the court below, to hear the appeal on their said Amended Brief of Argument. Pursuant to Order 6 Rule 8 (6) of the Rules of this Court, the appeal was deemed argued by the Respondent since the Briefs had been filed and exchanged, judgment was therefore, reserved till to-day.

I agree with the Respondent in its paragraph 3.01 of its Brief of Argument that issues (a) and (b) (now issue (a) simplister as amended, is germane in this appeal and that issues (c) and (d), would be the necessary consequence if the court below, was right in refusing the Appellant’s application This will be covered by grounds 1 and 2 of the ground of appeal.

However, in the course of writing this Judgment, the Court observed or noted that while the Appellant in his “Introduction” paragraph 1.01 of his Brief stated as follows:

“On the 18th of February 1991, the Court of Appeal at Ibadan dismissed an appeal by the Appellant against a decision of the High Court of Oyo State. In delivering its judgment however, the Court of Appeal relied on grounds of appeal which were not filed by the Appellant and were not before it”.

[the underlining mine]

In paragraph 1.03 thereof the following appear;

“On the 23rd of October 1997, the new Counsel briefed to handle the appeal brought an application to file additional grounds of appeal for the purpose of the fresh hearing of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.