LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interlocutory Appeals – Wrongful Rejection of Evidence – Leave Not Required When Appealing Final Judgment
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where on the other hand, the complaint of the appellant against the ruling is concerned with the wrongful admission of evidence or wrongful rejection of evidence, such an appellant would not require the leave of court as the ruling appealed against is not regarded as interlocutory decision. The appellant may therefore include the ground of appeal against that ruling of the trial court when appealing against the final judgment of the trial court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Onwe & Ors v. Nwaogbuinya & Ors (2001) NLC-201991(SC) at p. 13; Paras D–E.
"Where on the other hand, the complaint of the appellant against the ruling is concerned with the wrongful admission of evidence or wrongful rejection of evidence, such an appellant would not require the leave of court as the ruling appealed against is not regarded as interlocutory decision. The appellant may therefore include the ground of appeal against that ruling of the trial court when appealing against the final judgment of the trial court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A ruling on admissibility of evidence is not treated as an interlocutory decision requiring leave to appeal. An appellant may challenge wrongful admission or rejection of evidence directly in an appeal against the final judgment without obtaining separate leave. Such rulings are considered part of the trial process, not separate interlocutory decisions. The principle saves time and expense by consolidating all complaints in the final appeal. However, other types of interlocutory rulings (e.g., jurisdiction, striking out) may require leave if appealed separately. The distinction promotes efficiency in appellate practice. The appellant must still file grounds of appeal against the ruling within the final appeal.
