BESTMAN V. WHYTE (2020)

Background

This case involves the appeal by Madam Rosata Bestman and Mrs. Tonye Karibi-Whyte against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The appellants were dissatisfied with the previous ruling and sought to appeal to the Supreme Court. Their application, submitted on 17 July 2018, included various requests such as leave to withdraw previous motions, extensions for submitting the record of appeal, and the amendment of their notice of appeal filed on 19 June 2013.

Issues

The key issues to be considered in this case were:

1. Whether the notice of appeal initiated on 19 June 2013 was null and void or incompetent.
2. If the notice was incompetent, whether the Supreme Court could grant the motions filed on 17 July 2018 aimed at rectifying the defects in the appeal.
3. Whether the appellants provided sufficient grounds to enable the court to exercise its discretion to grant their application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that:

1. Leave to appeal must be obtained before filing an appeal based on grounds of mixed law and fact; failure to do so renders the notice of appeal null and void.
2. An application to amend a defective notice of appeal cannot revive its status, as such notices are considered legally non-existent.
3. The applicants did not provide adequate justification for the delay in filing for leave to appeal, resulting in the dismissal of their requests.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

1. The notice of appeal filed without the requisite leave of court was incompetent and thus nullified.
2. All prayers sought by the applicants to amend or withdraw their motions were dismissed since an amendment would not cure the fundamental defects of the original notice.
3. No exceptional circumstances were presented to warrant an enlargement of time for the appeal process, leading to the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.

Conclusion

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the application made by the appellants for leave to appeal.

Significance

This ruling provided crucial clarification on the requirements for initiating appeals in Nigeria, emphasizing that leave must be obtained for appeals involving mixed law and fact. It reinforced the necessity for procedural diligence, highlighting that failure to comply with initial procedural requirements could ultimately deny parties their right to appeal.