BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Comptroller N. P. S. v. Adekanye (No. 3)
  • 120
  • 2002-09-16
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Comptroller N. P. S. v. Adekanye (No. 3)

COMPTROLLER NIGERIAN PRISONS SERVICES

DEPUTY CONTROLLER, IKOYI PRISON

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

V

DR. FEMI ADEKANYE

USMAN ABUBAKAR

IFEANYI ARTHUR

R. K. OSAYAMEH

MUFTAU BALOGUN

EYO EFFIOM

SOLOMON ASEMOTA

CHUKA KESHI

IBOOK EYO

KINGSLEY B. EFFIOM

EME EYO

INYANG EFFIOM

MONDAY ODIYE

DR. O. A. FOLORUNSHO

ABUBAKAR GABI

ELENDU C. C.

AGABI JOE I.

ETIM UDO

PHILIP OGUNSANYA

RASHINDI SULAIMAN

BABATUNDE AKINGBAGBE

OLAWALE AFOLABI

BABATUNDE AKINYEMI

EDWIN ERINMWINGBOVO

KINGSLEY IGBOGBO

GODWIN OGBONNA

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JSC ( Presided )

IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC

SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC

ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JSC

AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )

SC. 185/1999

FRIDAY, 12TH JULY, 2002

APPEAL - Appeal based on lower court’s judgment which the Supreme Court has already set aside - Whether the Supreme Court need consider same again

COURT - Supreme Court - Appeal based on judgment already set aside thereby - Whether the Supreme Court need consider same again

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Right of party to a suit to have a legal practitioner of his choice

PARTIES - Party to a suit - Right of to a legal practitioner of his choice

Issue :

Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondents and proceedings therefrom to grant bail to them irrespective of the fact that it had delivered its final judgment which thereby made it functus officio on the motions and prayers in question.

Facts:

The respondents as applicants at the Court of Appeal filed several applications for the following reliefs:

(1)         praying the Court of Appeal to vary  its order contained in its judgment dated 15th June, 1999.

(2)         praying the Court of Appeal to grant bail to the respondents/ applicants.

Alternatively

(3)         An order directing the lower court to release the applicants on bail.

The appellants opposed the application, and at the conclusion of hearing the Court of Appeal granted bail to the applicants. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed against that ruling to the Supreme Court. The respondents also filed a cross-appeal.