FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. GIDADO & ORS. (2025)

Background

This decision concerned an application by the Federal Republic of Nigeria for procedural reliefs necessary to challenge a ruling of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division. The respondents had been prosecuted before the Federal High Court, Sokoto, on a six-count money-laundering charge. Following the close of the prosecution’s evidence, they made no-case submissions. On 11 October 2023, the trial court upheld the submissions in respect of counts one to five and discharged and acquitted all the respondents on those counts. However, it held that Ibrahim Gidado, the first respondent, had a case to answer on count six and ordered him to enter his defence.

The Federal Republic appealed to the Court of Appeal, but its notice of appeal omitted the name of the first respondent. It later sought several orders, including leave to amend the notice of appeal, extension of time to seek leave to appeal against the trial court’s ruling concerning the first respondent, leave to appeal, extension of time to appeal, permission to compile and transmit a supplementary record, and related briefing orders. On 28 March 2025, the Court of Appeal granted only an extension of time to file the applicant’s brief. It refused the other reliefs because, although the proposed grounds appeared to disclose good cause, the applicant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its delay.

The applicant then sought relief from the Supreme Court. Its application, filed on 17 June 2025, requested extension of time to seek leave, leave to appeal, extension of time to appeal, and leave to appeal on grounds of law, facts, and mixed law and facts.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal on grounds of facts or mixed law and facts, particularly after the deletion of section 233(3) and related provisions of the 1999 Constitution by the Constitution (Second Alteration) Act, 2010.
2. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for the “trinity prayers”: extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal, and extension of time to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously held that section 233(1) of the 1999 Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear and determine “appeals from the Court of Appeal.” Those words are general and contain no limitation excluding appeals based on facts or mixed law and facts. Section 233(2) merely identifies the categories of appeals that lie as of right; it does not exhaustively define the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Appeals not falling within section 233(2) may still lie with leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

The Court further held that the deletion of section 233(3), (4), and related provisions did not expressly or unequivocally remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over appeals founded on facts or mixed law and facts. An ouster of jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be inferred. The jurisdiction granted by section 233(1) includes the inherent power to grant leave where leave is required. Section 27 of the Supreme Court Act also recognises both appeals as of right and appeals brought with leave.

The Court explained that an “appeal as of right” is an appeal that may be commenced without first obtaining leave. Conversely, where leave is required, the appellant must satisfy the applicable procedural conditions before the appeal can properly be brought.

Conflicting Authorities and Precedent

The Court rejected the argument that Shittu v. P.A.N. Ltd. conclusively settled that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over appeals based on facts or mixed law and facts. The relevant statement in that case was treated as an obiter dictum because it was not necessary for, and did not influence, the decision. Although Eribenne v. Ugoh adopted the contrary position, the Court observed that subsequent Supreme Court decisions continued to grant leave and determine such appeals. Under the Nigerian doctrine of stare decisis, where decisions of the Supreme Court conflict, the later applicable line of authority prevails over the earlier one.

Court Findings on Extension of Time

Despite resolving the jurisdictional question in the applicant’s favour, the Supreme Court dismissed the application on its merits. Order 4 rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 requires an applicant seeking enlargement of time to demonstrate both good and substantial reasons for the delay and proposed grounds of appeal that prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. Both requirements must ordinarily be satisfied.

The applicant’s explanation was that its application for leave had not been heard by the Court of Appeal before the statutory appeal period expired. The Supreme Court found that this circumstance was self-created. The applicant filed the application in the Court of Appeal only six days before the expiry of the applicable thirty-day period under section 27(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act. It did not explain why it waited twenty-five days before filing that application, what efforts it made to secure an urgent hearing, or why it failed to use the additional fifteen-day period allowed by section 27(3). It also failed to explain why it waited approximately two months after withdrawing the Court of Appeal application before approaching the Supreme Court.

The proposed grounds were also deficient. They did not adequately challenge the Court of Appeal’s central finding that the applicant had failed to explain its delay. The complaint that the application had not been brought “timeously” did not address the real issue, namely the absence of reasons for the delay. The alleged difficulty in obtaining a certified true copy of the trial court’s ruling was not accepted, especially because the applicant had already filed a notice of appeal without that copy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously refused and dismissed the application for lack of merit. It confirmed that appeals from the Court of Appeal on grounds of facts or mixed law and facts remain legally possible with leave, but held that the Federal Republic of Nigeria failed to meet the procedural and evidential requirements for extending time and obtaining leave in this particular case.

Significance

The ruling provides important clarification on the constitutional appellate jurisdiction of Nigeria’s Supreme Court. It preserves access to the Supreme Court for appeals involving factual or mixed questions, subject to leave where necessary, and rejects an implied constitutional ouster based solely on the deletion of earlier textual provisions. At the same time, the decision reinforces strict procedural discipline: an applicant seeking the trinity prayers must act diligently, explain every material period of delay, and present proposed grounds that directly disclose an arguable appeal. Litigation strategy, administrative delay, or a self-created procedural predicament will not ordinarily amount to good and substantial reasons for enlargement of time.