Interlocutory/Final Decision

The settled position of the law is that at interlocutory stage, no Court whether trial or appellate, is allowed to delve into the substantive matter in the pending matter and decide it. All decision reached in such a situation can only constitute a nullity.

A decision can only be regarded as final where the decision clearly and wholly disposes of all the rights of the parties in the case. But where the decision only disposes of an issue or issues in the case leaving the parties to go back to claim other rights in the Court, then that decision is interlocutory.
In order to determine whether the decision is final or interlocutory, the decision must relate to the subject matter in dispute and not to the function of the Court making the order. See EBOKAM vs EKWENIBE & SONS LTD.(1999) 7 S.C. (Pt. 7) 39, OGOLO VS OGOLO (2006) 2 S.C. (Pt.7) 61; CPC vs. INEC (2012) 2-3 S.C. 188.

It is an elementary principle that decisions of a law Court proceed not only on the basis of pleaded facts but also on the basis of the facts as established by evidence in that behalf. Thus any decision of a Court which proceeds in the absence of the party's pleadings and/or evidence in proof of the pleadings, being perverse, would not endure on appeal. See Okonkwo v. C.C.B. (Nig) Plc (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt 822) 347, Thompson v. Arowolo (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt 818) 163 and Adake v. Akun (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt 840) 418.

In determining whether the decision of a Court is a final or an interlocutory decision, the proper test is that put forward by Alverstone L. CJ in Bozson v Altrincham U.D.C (supra). According to His Lordship: It seems to me that the real test for determining this question ought to be: does the order, as made, finally, dispose of the rights of the parties? If it does, then it ought to be treated as a final order; if it does not, then it is an interlocutory order.
In Re: Faithful Ex-parte Moore (1885) 14 QBD 627, Brett, M.R. said: If the Court orders something to be done according to the answer to the enquiries, without any further reference to itself, the judgement is final. In Akinsanya v UBA Ltd (1986) 4 NWLR (pt 35) 273, one of the issues canvassed was whether the decision of the Court of Appeal, striking out the appellant’s claim, was a final or interlocutory decision.
This Court, applying the nature of the order test, or the test in Bozson v Altrincham (supra), held that the majority in the Court of Appeal, having determined that the trial Court had no jurisdiction, had nothing further to determine with regard to the rights of the parties. The decision was therefore final as being a final decision of the Court of Appeal. Again, in Alor v.
Ngene [2007] 17 NWLR (pt 1061)163, 175; 176, applying this test, this Court held: In a plethora of decided cases, this Court decided that, in this Country, if the order, decision or judgment of a Court finally determines the rights of the parties in the case, it is final. But if it does not, it is interlocutory only. And in order to determine whether the decision is final or interlocutory, the decision must relate to the subject matter in dispute between the parties and not the function of the Court in making the order.
Therefore, the determining factor is not whether the Court had finally determined the issue but it is whether or not it has finally determined the rights of the parties in the claim before the parties. See also Gomez and Anor v Cherubim and Seraphim Society and Ors. [2009] 10 NWLR (pt. 1149) 223, 246 – CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.