LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interlocutory Appeals – Appellate Court Should Not Determine Merits of Substantive Case
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court should not pour the totality of its own mind on the merits of a matter (in contrast to the case on hand) on which it is not going to make a final decision on the merits. See Bakare v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 47 at 58. Thus, the court below said right when it held that the other issues 'can only properly arise after full hearing of the matter in the court below and either of the parties chooses to appeal from the final decision of the Court. Indeed, a court of appeal must be wary of going into issues that may arise in the substantive appeal when considering an appeal from an interlocutory decision of a lower court like the present appeal.'
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in *7-UP Bottling Company Ltd. & Ors v. Abiola and Sons Bottling Company Ltd.* (2001) NLC-631996(SC) at pp. 11–12; Paras E–A.
"An appellate court should not pour the totality of its own mind on the merits of a matter (in contrast to the case on hand) on which it is not going to make a final decision on the merits. See Bakare v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 47 at 58. Thus, the court below said right when it held that the other issues 'can only properly arise after full hearing of the matter in the court below and either of the parties chooses to appeal from the final decision of the Court. Indeed, a court of appeal must be wary of going into issues that may arise in the substantive appeal when considering an appeal from an interlocutory decision of a lower court like the present appeal.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
In interlocutory appeals, appellate courts must avoid determining the substantive merits of the case. Issues requiring full hearing should be left for final determination after trial. The court should only address the narrow interlocutory question (e.g., jurisdiction, non-suit, procedural matters). Pouring the totality of judicial mind on substantive merits when not making a final decision risks prejudging the case, wasting judicial resources, and creating premature findings. The appellate court must be wary—limiting pronouncements to the specific interlocutory issue. This preserves the integrity of the eventual full trial and avoids usurping the trial court’s fact-finding role.