BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Pinacle Commercial Bank Ltd v. Steel Bell Nig. Ltd
  • 7
  • 2000-07-17
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Pinacle Commercial Bank Ltd v. Steel Bell Nig. Ltd

PINACLE COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED

CHIEF CHIKE CHIGBUE

V

STEEL BELL NIGERIA LIMITED

RABO FARMS LIMITED

DR. IME SAMPSON UMANAH

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE

CHIEF LANDS OFFICER

COURT OF APPEAL

( LAGOS DIVISION )

GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE J.C.A.( Presided and read the leading judgment )

SULEIMAN GALADIMA  J.C.A.

AMIRU SANUSI  J.C.A.

CA/L/259/96

CA/L/216/98

WEDNESDAY 8TH MARCH, 2000

APPEAL - Leave to appeal - Application for - When necessary

APPEAL - Leave to appeal - Application for - When unnecessary

APPEAL - Leave to appeal - Relevant conditions - Consideration of

APPEAL - Notice of Appeal - Validity or competence of - Which court determines

APPEAL - Notice of Appeal - When lower court can form its view in respect thereof

COURT -  Notice of Appeal - When lower court can form its view in respect of

Issue:

Whether it is appropriate for the applicants to seek leave to appeal when their proposed grounds of appeal are mainly of law.

Facts:

1 st - 3rd Plaintiffs/Respondents in this application had instituted a law suit against the Defendants/Applicants herein, and were granted an interim injunction order by which the Defendants/Applicants were restrained from selling the properties of the Plaintiffs including plot 308, Younis Bashorun Street, Victoria Island Annex, Lagos.  The properties had been mortgaged by the plaintiffs to the 1st Applicant to secure a loan granted to the 1st - 3rd plaintiffs/Respondents.  The applicants’ application to discharge and or set aside the interlocutory injunction was granted. The plaintiffs’ interlocutory injunction application was then dismissed.  The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal.  On 24/1/2000, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restrained the applicants from selling the mortgaged properties of the plaintiffs.  Dissatisfied, the Defendants sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and presented to the Court of Appeal eight proposed grounds of appeal.  The Plaintiffs/Respondents submitted, however, that no leave was needed to appeal as the grounds of appeal were mainly of law.