PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The instant case... is an interlocutory motion by the appellant to be joined as co-administrators with the respondents. The order of the learned trial Judge granting the application determined the rights of the parties in the application. It is an order which did not require something else to be done in answer, and without any further reference to itself or any other court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The order of the learned trial Judge is therefore a final order. An appeal on the said order is as of right under section 220(1) of the Constitution 1979.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Igunbor v. Afolabi & Anor (2001) NLC-841996(SC) at p. 17; Paras B–C.
"The instant case... is an interlocutory motion by the appellant to be joined as co-administrators with the respondents. The order of the learned trial Judge granting the application determined the rights of the parties in the application. It is an order which did not require something else to be done in answer, and without any further reference to itself or any other court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The order of the learned trial Judge is therefore a final order. An appeal on the said order is as of right under section 220(1) of the Constitution 1979."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

An order granting joinder as co-administrator is a final order, not interlocutory, despite arising from an interlocutory motion. The order determined the rights of the parties in the application—nothing further remained to be done in answer. No further reference to any court was required. The order finally disposed of the issue of joinder. Therefore, an appeal against such order is as of right, not requiring leave. The classification depends on whether the order finally determines the rights of the parties on the particular issue disputed. If the order leaves nothing further to be done on that issue, it is final. The right of appeal attaches immediately. The principle ensures prompt appellate review of decisions that finally determine rights in ancillary proceedings.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE