PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Whether the provisions of O.8 r 12(4) would apply or not depends on the question raised in the interlocutory decision and the impact which the resolution of that question may have on the fairness or justice of the final determination. I venture to think, by way of example only, that where the interlocutory application is to the effect that the record of appeal is inaccurate, an interlocutory decision of the court below that the appeal should proceed on such record, unamended, should not preclude a party from complaining on a further appeal that the court below had proceeded on an inaccurate record and that its decision is thereby flawed.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ayoola, JSC, in Shanu v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2000) NLC-1691997(SC) at p. 7; Paras B–D.
"Whether the provisions of O.8 r 12(4) would apply or not depends on the question raised in the interlocutory decision and the impact which the resolution of that question may have on the fairness or justice of the final determination. I venture to think, by way of example only, that where the interlocutory application is to the effect that the record of appeal is inaccurate, an interlocutory decision of the court below that the appeal should proceed on such record, unamended, should not preclude a party from complaining on a further appeal that the court below had proceeded on an inaccurate record and that its decision is thereby flawed."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Order 8 Rule 12(4) of the Supreme Court Rules does not universally permit bypassing interlocutory appeals. Its applicability depends on the nature of the interlocutory issue and its impact on final determination. Where the interlocutory decision concerns fundamental fairness—e.g., proceeding on an inaccurate record—the provision allows complaint on final appeal despite no separate appeal. However, where the interlocutory issue is distinct and unrelated to final justice, failure to appeal may preclude complaint. This balances finality with the need to prevent miscarriages from erroneous preliminary rulings.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE

None recorded.