MRS. ELIZABETH OMOLEWA OGUNLESI V BEAUTYFAIR LABORATORIES LIMITED & ORS (2026)

Background

The Applicant challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in Beautyfair Laboratories Ltd & Anor v Mrs Elizabeth Omolewa Ogunlesi & Anor, delivered on 11 April 2025. She stated that the Court of Appeal had overturned the judgment of the trial High Court, where she had succeeded. Three notices of appeal were filed within the prescribed period, and a further motion seeking leave to appeal was filed on 23 June 2025. Counsel also submitted a letter and affidavit of urgency, but the motion was not assigned for hearing before the applicable three-month period expired. The Applicant therefore sought an extension of time, leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact, permission to file a notice of appeal, and orders validating the transmitted record.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, and to hear appeals, on grounds of fact or mixed law and fact notwithstanding the deletion of section 233(3) of the Constitution by the Second Alteration Act 2010.
2. Whether the Applicant satisfied the requirements for an extension of time and leave to appeal under Order 4 rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024.
3. Whether the previously transmitted record and earlier notices of appeal could be validated by the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 233(1) of the Constitution confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal generally, while section 233(2) identifies appeals that lie as of right. The deletion of section 233(3) did not expressly remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over appeals on facts or mixed law and fact. Such appeals remain possible, but leave must first be sought and obtained.

An application for extension of time under Order 4 rule 6 must be supported by an affidavit giving good and substantial reasons for the delay and must exhibit a proposed notice of appeal showing prima facie good cause why the appeal should be heard. These requirements are cumulative. The proposed grounds need not establish that the appeal will succeed, but must be substantial and arguable.

Court Findings

The Court accepted the explanation that the Applicant’s counsel had filed an earlier application for leave within time, supported it with an urgency request, and was unable to obtain a hearing date before the time expired. The Court found that the affidavit and exhibits, including the Court of Appeal judgment, the trial judgment, and the proposed notice of appeal, satisfied Order 4 rule 6.

The Court further found that the 22 proposed grounds of appeal were prima facie arguable and raised substantial issues capable of judicial consideration. However, the earlier motion of 23 June 2025 had been withdrawn and struck out. Consequently, the processes and exhibits attached to that motion were of no effect. The previously filed notices of appeal, having been filed on grounds of fact or mixed law and fact without prior leave, could not support the requested validation of the transmitted record. Reliefs relating to the existing record were therefore refused and struck out.

Conclusion

The application was granted in part. Time was extended to the date of the ruling for the Applicant to apply for leave and to file a notice of appeal. Leave was granted to appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds of mixed law and fact, and the notice of appeal was required to be filed within 60 days. The prayers seeking permission to rely on or deem the previously transmitted record properly transmitted were refused and struck out.

Significance

The ruling confirms that the Supreme Court continues to possess jurisdiction over appeals involving facts or mixed law and fact, despite the constitutional deletion of section 233(3), provided the appellant obtains leave. It also reiterates the strict, cumulative requirements for extensions of time: a credible explanation for delay and a proposed notice of appeal disclosing arguable grounds.