LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Appeals – Issues Arising from Unappealed Rulings – Incompetence of Such Issues
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The facts revealed above show that it was the 1st Respondent who made the application and which the High Court granted on 23/6/89 on condition that the properties shall not be sold on or before 31/12/89. The Ruling of 23/6/89 was not appealed. The issues which now seek to question that Ruling without an appeal are therefore clearly incompetent. And they ought to be struck-out. It makes no difference that the same or similar issues has been raised and answered in the Court of Appeal because they were not properly or validly raised either.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Akpunonu v. Beakart Overseas & Ors (2000) NLC-601995(SC) at p. 5; Paras A–C.
"The facts revealed above show that it was the 1st Respondent who made the application and which the High Court granted on 23/6/89 on condition that the properties shall not be sold on or before 31/12/89. The Ruling of 23/6/89 was not appealed. The issues which now seek to question that Ruling without an appeal are therefore clearly incompetent. And they ought to be struck-out. It makes no difference that the same or similar issues has been raised and answered in the Court of Appeal because they were not properly or validly raised either."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An unappealed ruling remains binding and cannot be collaterally attacked in subsequent proceedings. Issues seeking to question such a ruling without a direct appeal are incompetent and must be struck out. The fact that similar issues were addressed by the Court of Appeal does not cure the defect if they were not properly raised. Parties must appeal interlocutory rulings they intend to challenge; they cannot circumvent this requirement by raising issues collaterally. This ensures finality and prevents fragmentation of litigation.