DIKIO V. N.S.I.T.F. MGT. BOARD (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 129
ON WHAT IS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
A right of first refusal is a contractual or statutory provision that gives a specific party the priority to purchase a property or investment before it is offered to anyone else.
Essentially, if the owner of the property decides to sell, he must first offer it to the party holding the right of first refusal on the same terms such as price, etc.
It is a mechanism in a contract or statute that affords the holder of such right the preference to buy a particular property, should the owner ever choose to sell it.
If the holder of the right declines, the owner can then offer it to other potential buyers.
The right of first refusal is typically a clause within a contract, often between a landlord and tenant. It may also be a provision in a statute, in respect of tenancies governed by statute or a part of government policy in respect of properties owned by government.
In the instant case, there was no contractual clause granting any of the appellants the alleged right of first refusal alluded to by their counsel. The appellants’ counsel did not also point or refer to any statutory provision or government circular that invested the appellants with the alleged right of first refusal.
[Haruna v. K.S.H.A. (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 604; Adama v. K.S.H.A. (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 501 referred to.] (P. 161, paras. A-D; F-G)
PRECISION ASSO. LTD. V. FED. MIN., FINANCE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT.
2004) 175
ON MEANING AND IMPORT OF “ADMINISTRATION OR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL” IN SECTION 251(1)(P) OF 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED)
In ordinary English, the word “administration” means the management of the affairs of a business or organization; the word “management” means the organizing and controlling of the affairs of a business or a particular sector of a business; and the word “control” means to exercise power or authority over something, such as a business.
Therefore, the term “administration or management and control” in section 251(1)(p) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) means the direction, oversight, and regulation of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, thereby granting the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction over causes or matters relating to the internal management and operations of the Federal Government and its agencies.
In this case, the appellants’ claims, which were granted by the trial court, do not fall within causes or matters related to the internal management and/or operations of the respondents, which are agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Therefore, section 251(1)(p) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) does not apply to the case, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to entertain the appellant’s case or suit.
(Pp. 195-196, paras. H-D)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON MEANING OF “DECISION” IN RELATION TO RIGHT OF APPEAL
By virtue of section 318 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), “decision” means, in relation to a court or tribunal established by law, any determination of that court and includes judgment, act, order, conviction, sentence, or recommendation.
It follows, therefore, that the single right of appeal created, given, and provided for in the provisions of section 246(1) of the Constitution can be exercised against any determination by the Governorship Election Tribunal of any issue or issues raised or arising in the final decision or judgment on the question whether any person has been validly elected to the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor.
(P. 101, paras. F-H)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON MEANING OF “SUI GENERIS”
Sui generis means of its own kind or of a unique class in litigation proceedings.
[Okechukwu v. Obiano (2020) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1726) 276; APC v. Marafa (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 383; Lokpobiri v. APC (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1793) 538; Abubakar v. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1737) 37 referred to.] (P. 104, paras. A-B)
OMEH V UTYO (2025) 12 NWLR 1 SC
ON MEANING OF DECISION
A decision in relation to a court means any determination of that court and includes judgment, decrees, order conviction, sentence or recommendation.
[Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 293; Kubor v. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534; Omisore v. Aregbesola (supra); C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 260; Madurere v. Okwara (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 303; Salik v. Idris (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 36; Otti v. Ogah (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1563) 1; FRN v. Atuche (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 338 referred to.] (Pp. 21-22, paras. G-4)
OMEH V UTYO (2025) 12 NWLR 1 SC
ON MEANING OF FINAL DECISION
A final decision is a decision which puts an end to the action by deciding whether the plaintiff is or not entitled to the reliefs he claims thereby leaving nothing for further in respect of enforcement of that decision. [Iwueke v. I.B.C. (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 959) 447 referred to.] (P. 21, paras. A-B)
OMEH V UTYO (2025) 12 NWLR 1 SC
ON WHAT INTERLOCUTORY CONNOTES
Interlocutory connotes an occurrence/happening which is provisional, temporary, interim and not a final resolution of the whole controversy. It intervenes between the commencement and the end of the suit, Hence an interlocutory decision/decree denotes an intermediate judgment that determines a preliminary or subordinate point or plea but does not finally decide the case. A judgment or order given on a provisional or accessory claim or contention. [N.A.O.C. Ltd. v. Nweke (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 588; Agwu v. Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 165; C.G.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Eronini (2019) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1992) 219 referred to.] (P. 22, paras. B-D)
OMEH V UTYO (2025) 12 NWLR 1 SC
ON DISTINCTION BETWEEN FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS
Where an order made by a court finally determines the rights of the parties to an action, then it is final and where it does not, it is interlocutory.
[gunbor v. Afolabi (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 148; Ogolo v. Ogolo (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 113; Owoh v. Asuk (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 173; Gomez v. C. & S.S. (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 223; General Electric Co. v. Akande (2010) 18 (Pt. 1225) NWLR 596; H.A.O.C. Ltd v. Nkweke (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 588; Ngige v. Disu (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1590) 1; C.G.G. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Odurusam (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 476; Ugo v. Ugo (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1597) 218; Boko v. Nungwu (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1654) 395; Fapohunda v. R.C.C.N. Ltd. (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 163 referred to.] (P. 23, paras. A-C)
Per OGBUINYA, J.S.C. at pages 23-24, paras. E-B:
“…the trial court, in an abiding loyalty to the command of the law occasioned by the discordant claims in the suit, had a full-dress determination of the action. It assessed the evidence of the feuding parties, using the proverbial scale of justice to weigh them and juxtaposed them with the applicable legal principles within the firmament of contractual law. At its terminus ad quem, precisely at the bottom of page 78 of the record, the trial court granted the respondent’s reliefs in the suit. It stems from the trial court’s judgment, dissected above, that the rights of the warring parties, which germinated from the supply contract inter parties that ignited the suit, were, to all intents, and purposes disposed of by the decision of the trial court. The import is plain. The judgment of the trial court disclosed clearly that the contending parties would never return to patronise the trial court to ventilate their nursed grievances and harness their rights in its temple of justice. “In essence, the trial court, upon the rendering of its decision, had become functus officio over the suit and parties mired in the intractable nest of quo warranto to revisit the trial court vis-à-vis the respondent’s action. In effect, the decision of the trial court was a classic exemplification of a final decision. To this end, I coronate it with the deserved toga of final decision with its attendant characteristics and privileges in the appellate adjudication”.
OMEH V UTYO (2025) 12 NWLR 1 SC
ON DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A DECISION IS FINAL
In determining whether a decision is final, the court will consider whether the said decision disposes of the rights of the parties in their entirety, leaving nothing for judicial determination except execution. If the order made finally disposes of the right of the parties, then the order is final. If the order does not, then it is interlocutory. An order is also regarded as final if at once it affects the status will of the parties for whichever side the decision may be given, for that if it is given for the plaintiff, it is conclusive against the defendant, if it is given for the defendant, it is conclusive against the plaintiff. In order to determine whether or not the decision of a court is final or interlocutory, the decision must relate to the subject matter in dispute between the parties and not the function of the court making the order. In the instant appeal, the trial court’s judgment granted all the reliefs sought by the respondent, conclusively resolving the contractual dispute. No further adjudication was required. This unambiguously qualifies the decision as a final decision, thereby birthing the appellant’s constitutional right to appeal as of right.
[Allied Int’l Ind. Ltd. v. Ecobank Nig. Ltd. (2023) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1893) 513; Alor v. Ngene (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1062) 163; W.R. & P.C. Ltd. v. GECMEP (Nig.) Ltd. (2020); Compagne Generale De Geophysique (Nig.) Ltd. v. Eronini (2019) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1692) 219; Dankwambo v. Abubakar (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 157; Balogun v. Ode (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 1; Igunbor v. Afolabi (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 148 referred to.] (Pp. 30-31, paras. B-D)
OMEH V UTYO (2025) 12 NWLR 1 SC
ON IMPORT OF THE WORDS “SUBJECT TO”
The expression “subject to” when used in a statute, is used to introduce a condition, a proviso or a limitation and thereby subordinates one provision to another provision. The expression generally implies that what is subject to shall govern, control and prevail over what follows in that subject section of the enactment, so that it renders the provisions to which it is subject conditional upon compliance with or adherence to what is prescribed in the provisions to which it is subject conditional. It therefore means that the decision of the Court of Appeal that section 241(1)(a) depends on section 242(1) is erroneous and it runs counter to the clear wordings of both provisions. The correct position is that section 242(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) having been made subject to section 241 of the same Constitution, is governed by and dependent upon the latter. The import of this is that an appeal to the Court of Appeal will only lie with leave by section 242(1) of the Constitution where same does not fall within any of the categories listed in section 241(1) of the Constitution. Thus, the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was against a decision of a High Court sitting at first instance, which qualified to be instituted as of right by virtue of section 241(1)(a) of the Constitution. Section 242(1) of the Constitution is irrelevant to that appeal. In the circumstance, the Court of Appeal was wrong to have struck out the appellant’s appeal for failure to seek leave. [Aqua Ltd. v. Ondo State Sports Council (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 91) 622; F.R.N. v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361 referred to.] (P. 28, paras. D-H; 29, paras. B-E)
OMEH V UTYO (2025) 12 NWLR 1 SC
ON MEANING OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Court of first instance (instance court or court of instance) is a court of original jurisdiction where the evidence is first received and considered. (P. 24, paras. B-C)
STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. L.G.C. LTD. (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 361
ON MEANING OF “IN PARI DELICTO”
“In pari delicto”, an adverb in Latin means “equally at fault”.
The Latin phrase in pari delicto simply translated “in equal fault” is a legal principle used to point out that two persons or entities are equally at fault, notwithstanding the nature of the fault in question as a crime or tort.
It is most often used when a relief is being denied by both parties in a civil action because of wrongdoing on both sides.
[Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) 600 referred to.]
(P. 401, paras. F–H)
AFRIBANK (NIG.) PLC V. C.B.N. (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 255
ON WHAT AMOUNTS TO “LEAVE”
“Leave” signifies permission.
[Ojemen v. Momodu (1983) 1 SCNLR 188; Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718; Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1269) 145; Otu v. ACB Int’l Ltd. (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1073) 179 referred to.]
(P. 292, paras. E-F)
BAGUDU V BALKISU [2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 317 S.C
ON MEANING OF CONCURRENT FINDINGS BY COURTS
Concurrent findings connote the findings of fact made by a trial court and confirmed as accurate by an appellate court. [Anthonio Oil Co. Ltd. v. AMCON (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1961) 215 referred.] (Pp. 359-360, paras. H-B)
C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 1
ON DEFINITION OF “PERSON”
Section 18 of the Interpretation Act defines “person” as including any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate.
(P. 112, paras. A–B)