LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Court of Appeal Rules – Scope of Order 1 Rule 20(7) and Order 3 Rule 22
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The provisions of Orders 1 Rule 20(7) and 3 Rule 22 of the Court of Appeal Rules are meant to cover appeals in interlocutory orders made in the course of the trial in a case and cannot apply to interlocutory orders antecedent to that case with a different suit number.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The provisions of Orders 1 Rule 20(7) and 3 Rule 22 of the Court of Appeal Rules are, in my view, meant to cover appeals in interlocutory orders made by Balogun, J., in the course of the trial in ID/794/89 and cannot apply to interlocutory orders antecedent to that case with a different Suit number."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Court of Appeal Rules provisions allowing raising of interlocutory orders in appeals against final judgment apply only to: interlocutory orders made during the same suit, orders within the specific case being appealed, and orders sharing the suit number with the final judgment appealed. These provisions don’t apply to: antecedent orders from different proceedings, orders with different suit numbers, or preliminary litigation separate from the main case. The rationale: the rules envision consolidated review of all orders within a single case, not importation of orders from separate proceedings. This limitation serves: clarity about which orders are appealable within final judgment appeals, preventing mixing of separate proceedings, and maintaining distinct treatment of separate suits. Parties wanting to challenge orders from separate proceedings must: appeal those orders separately, within proper time limits, and following appropriate procedures—not incorporate them into unrelated final judgment appeals. This principle clarifies appellate rules’ scope and prevents procedural confusion from mixing separate cases.