04/08/2026
UNDERSTANDING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND DECISIONS UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW!
-By-: C.K. Anyanwu, LL.M.
&
C.K. Ezeaku (Miss)
*INTRODUCTION*
Basically, civil and criminal litigation rarely proceed in a single, uninterrupted line from initial filing of cases to final determination of the matter. Along the way, trial courts are routinely called upon to resolve mid-stream disputes, whether to preserve property, amend pleadings, grant extensions of time, rule on the admissibility of evidence, or decide preliminary objections. The judicial decisions arising from these interim applications are known as interlocutory rulings. Interestingly, interlocutory appeals are a double-edged sword. On one hand, appealing an adverse ruling immediately can protect a client’s legal rights on a crucial preliminary point. On the other hand, mismanaging an interlocutory appeal, or deploying it simply to stall trial, can lead to severe consequences, including the striking out of grounds of appeal, heavy cost penalties against counsel, or an outright dismissal for abuse of court process.This article examines the legal, statutory, and judicial framework governing interlocutory applications and decisions in Nigerian law. It analyzes the test for finality, statutory time limits in civil versus criminal matters, stay of proceedings, the duty of counsel to avoid frivolous interlocutory appeals, and the precise procedure for incorporating interlocutory complaints into a final appeal.
*A) MEANING OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS*
In *School of Banking Honours Ltd v. Karsmal Int'l Services Ltd & Ors (2025) LPELR-81169(CA),* per Eberechi Suzzette Nyesom-Wike, JCA, defined an interlocutory application by relying on Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) as:
'A motion for equitable or legal relief sought before a final decision.'
This definition encompasses applications filed to preserve the res, regularize processes, seek leave to amend pleadings, or resolve evidentiary points raised during trial.
*B) LEGAL STATUS OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS AND DECISIONS*
In *Aminu & Ors v. Governing Council FPO & Anor (2023) LPELR-60789(CA),* the Court of Appeal held per Tunde Oyebamiji Awotoye, JCA (Pp 8-9 Paras E-A) held as follows:
'By virtue of Section 14(1) of the Court of Appeal Act (as amended): '(1) Where in the exercise by the High Court of a State or, as the case may be, by the Federal High Court of its original jurisdiction an interlocutory order or decision is made in the course of any suit or matter, an appeal shall, by leave of that Court or of the Court of Appeal, lie to the Court of Appeal; but no appeal shall lie from any order made ex parte, or by consent of the parties, or relating only to costs.'
*C) DISTINCTION BETWEEN FINAL DECISION AND INTERLOCUTORY DECISION*
The major distinction between a final decision and an interlocutory decision rests on the test of finality, that is, the effect of the ruling on the rights of the parties. As held by Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JCA, in *Nigeria Customs Service & Anor v. Bazuaye (2005) LPELR-5948(CA):*
'Whether a decision is final or interlocutory depends on its results. If the decision finally disposes of the rights of the parties, it is final decision and not an interlocutory decision... Where a decision has determined the rights of the parties in the substantive case or application, the decision is final and not an interlocutory decision.'
*Whether an Appeal in Respect of Admissibility of a Document is an Interlocutory Appeal*
In that same decision of *Nigeria Customs Service & Anor v. Bazuaye (2005) LPELR-5948(CA):* the Court of Appeal clarified that evidentiary rulings made in the course of trial, such as a ruling admitting or rejecting a document, do not automatically constitute stand alone interlocutory decisions that must be appealed within 14 days, unless an actual interlocutory order was formally made and appealed independently.
Furthermore, in *Platinum Mortgage Bank Ltd v. Oluseyi (2025) LPELR-82412(CA),* the issue before the court was on whether a ruling on the admissibility of evidence is an interlocutory decision which can be incorporated in an appeal against final judgment without leave or extension of time, Boloukuromo Moses Ugo, JCA (Pp 14-14 Paras A-E), held:
'First, as regards respondent's argument that Ground 1 of the appeal, wherein appellant complained about the ruling of the trial Judge admitting Exhibit 1 in evidence is an interlocutory ruling so appeal against it can only lie to this Court with leave of Court first obtained or time extended for her to appeal, it is settled that a decision of the Court rejecting or admitting evidence is considered part of the main trial, rather than an interlocutory decision, unless a special case has been made of it, so a challenge of such decision can be raised in an appeal against the final judgment in the case without the necessity for obtaining leave of Court or an order extending time to appeal against it. See Okobia v. Ajanya & Anor (1998) LPELR-2454 (SC) page 17-19; F.B.N. v. Tsokwa (2003) FWLR (Pt. 153) 205 @ 223. Ground 1 of the appeal is therefore competent.'
*D) TIME LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS OF LEAVE IN CIVIL MATTERS*
Where a party is aggrieved by an interlocutory decision in a civil matter and chooses to challenge it immediately, strict statutory timelines apply.
Under Section 24(2) / Section 25(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act and Section 220(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), an appeal against an interlocutory decision in a civil cause must be filed within 14 days of the delivery of the ruling.
In *Mohammed & Anor v. Olawunmi & Ors (1990) LPELR-1893(SC),* Andrews Otutu Obaseki, JSC, observed:
'Being interlocutory, the times ordered by the Rules or Act in which to appeal is severely reduced and limited to 14 days. If there is an appeal within the 14 days and the ground of appeal involves question of law alone, the appeal is competent as the Constitution enables appellant to appeal as of right in such circumstances.'
Where an interlocutory appeal in a civil matter is brought after the expiration of 14 days, or where the grounds of appeal involve facts or mixed law and facts, obtaining leave of court is an absolute condition precedent. Section 14(1) of the Court of Appeal Act (as amended) governs this requirement. *See also Aminu & Ors v. Governing Council FPO & Anor, (supra).*
*Failure to seek and obtain the requisite leave renders the appeal or the specific ground of appeal incompetent, null, and void.*
In *Ugumba v. Nwawunwanne (2023) LPELR-60553(CA),* Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, emphasized:
'I must state categorically that by virtue of Section 241(1) and 242(2) of the Constitution 1999 (amended) leave must be obtained when filing an interlocutory appeal out of time irrespective of the fact that a final decision has been made at the trial Court. Therefore, a ground of appeal distilled without leave is held to be incompetent and liable to be struck out for being null and Void.'
*E) INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CAUSES*
A fundamental statutory distinction exists between civil and criminal matters regarding interlocutory appeals. While Section 25(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act splits civil appeals into 14 days for interlocutory decisions and 3 months for final decisions, Section 25(2)(b) draws no distinction between interlocutory and final decisions in criminal matters.
In *State v. Duke & Ors (2002) LPELR-6163(CA),* Sule Aremu Olagunju, JCA (Pp 10-16 Paras A-E), explained this statutory distinction in detail:
'It is obvious from the above provisions that there is a clear separation between 'civil' and 'criminal' matters and that while Sub-section (a) in respect of civil matters draws a line between 'interlocutory' and 'final' decisions, Sub-section (b) regulating the period of appeal in criminal matters does not draw a distinction between interlocutory and final decisions... From the reading of Sub-section 25(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act, I am satisfied that the period within which appeal from a decision in criminal matter must be filed is one uncompounded time-frame of 90 days from the date of the decision... the period within which an appeal can be filed in criminal matters remains the same whether the decision on appeal is interlocutory or final...'
This position was reaffirmed in *Agbo v. FRN (2013) LPELR-22870(CA),* where Ejembi Eko, JCA (Pp 8-9 Paras D-A), held:
'The distinction between appeals against interlocutory and final decisions, in criminal matters or causes, is only as regards whether the ground of appeal is based on law alone, which requires no leave and the appeal is of right; and whether the ground is based either on facts alone, or mixed law and facts, which under Sections 241 and 242 of the 1999 Constitution requires leave as a pre-condition. Section 25(1)(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 makes no distinction between interlocutory and final appeals as regards the stipulation of the periods for giving notice of appeal. It simply provides that 'in an appeal in a criminal cause or matter' the notice of appeal shall be filed 'within 90 days from the date of the decision appealed against.'
*Practice Directions Discouraging Interlocutory Appeals in Criminal Matters*
Despite the 90-day filing window, appellate practice directions strictly discourage interlocutory appeals in criminal prosecutions, particularly financial crimes. In *Ugo-Ngadi v. FRN (2018) LPELR-43903(SC),* Paul Adamu Galumje, JSC (Pp 24-25 Paras F-D), highlighted Paragraph 4(e) of the Court of Appeal (Fast Track) Practice Directions 2014:
'Active case management includes discouraging interlocutory appeals and requiring the parties, except in the most deserving cases, to subsume their interlocutory matters under a final appeal or under the substantive suit at the trial Court. The High Courts and the Court of Appeal are hereby called upon to observe and enforce the provision of this practice direction in order to cut down the delay experienced in the hearing and disposal of corruption related cases.'
*F) PROCEDURE AND GROUNDS FOR AN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS*
Where a party genuinely requires a stay of proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal, the application must first be presented to the trial court before approaching the appellate court.
In *Idris & Ors v. Audu (2004) LPELR-7322(CA),* Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JCA (as he then was, Pp 23 Paras A-D), highlighted the jurisdictional precondition:
'Further, the need for a stay of proceedings arises generally, where a trial Judge rules on an interlocutory point. Any party aggrieved by that ruling may appeal against it and after appealing the party may apply to that Court for a stay of proceedings pending appeal. If refused, the party may apply for same to the Court of Appeal. There is no evidence of appeal yet before this Court. This stripes this Court of jurisdiction on that relief. That was why I found it necessary to strike out that relief.'
Courts do not grant a stay of proceedings automatically. As Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye, JSC, noted in *Dingyadi & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2010) LPELR-40142(SC):*
'The Courts had decided that where an interlocutory appeal will finally dispose of the case pending before a lower Court, a stay of proceedings will be granted.'
*G) EFFECT OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS ON TRIAL COURTS*
A common misconception in litigation is that filing a Notice of Appeal against an interlocutory ruling automatically halts proceedings in the trial court. The law is settled: a Notice of Appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of proceedings or ex*****on.
In *NCSU v. EKASA & ORS (2022) LPELR-57143(CA), Uchechukwu Onyemenam, JCA, stated:*
'The position of the law is settled that a notice of appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings. For proceedings of a Court to be stayed, there must be an application granted by that Court to that effect... Hence, any party appealing against an interlocutory decision of a Court is under a duty to apply for stay of further proceedings until the determination of the interlocutory appeal if the party believes that the result of his appeal will affect further proceedings in the matter.'
*See also Josiah Cornelius Ltd & Ors v. Ezenwa (1996) LPELR-1632(SC).*
*Hearing Substantive Suits Pending Interlocutory Appeals*
Unless an explicit order staying proceedings is granted, trial courts are enjoined to proceed with the substantive matter.
*In Uzuda & Ors v. Ebigah & Ors (2009) LPELR-3458(SC),* Muhammad Saifullahi Muntaka-Coomassie, JSC, held:
'...where an interlocutory appeal does not affect the outcome of the determination of the substantive matter before the trial Court, or based on fundamental issue like, jurisdiction, the trial Court is enjoined to continue the hearing and determination of the substantive matter pending before it in order to hasten or quicken the dispensation of cases and have the rights of the litigating parties determined within a reasonable time.'
*H) DUTY OF COUNSEL, FRIVOLOUS APPEALS, AND ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS*
Appellate courts strongly deprecate the practice of using interlocutory appeals on minor issues to stall trials and frustrate opposing parties. Counsel owe an ethical and professional duty to the court and to litigants to avoid unnecessarily fracturing trials with interlocutory appeals.
In *Nsefik v. Muna (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1390) 151 (SC),* Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (at p. 177, paras C-D; pp. 188-189, paras H-A), lamented:
'Counsel to parties have a duty to avoid filing appeals against decisions on trifling legal issues which can be taken up with the substantive appeal at the conclusion of a suit before a court... It is indeed very unfortunate that this simple probate matter which commenced since November, 1989 after the death of the deceased who died on 12th March, 1989, is still pending unheard at the trial court after nearly 24 years while the estate left behind by the deceased remained not administered...'
Similarly, in *Nzekwe v. Anaekwenegbu (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 235 (SC)* at p. 251, para B, the Supreme Court stressed that counsel owe a duty to help reduce trial delays by avoiding unnecessary interlocutory appeals. In First Fuels Ltd v. N.N.P.C. (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 276 (CA) at p. 301, paras B-D, the Court of Appeal warned that interlocutory appeals succeed only in delaying the conclusion of suits, defeating the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court expressed sharp frustration over interlocutory delays in C.B.N. v. Akingbola (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1685) 84 (SC), where Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC (pp. 102-104), noted:
"Before I bring the curtains down on this judgment I must comment on this interlocutory appeal. The originating motion was filed in court in 2009. The trial court delivered an interlocutory ruling on 26 October 2009 while the Court of Appeal affirmed that ruling in its judgment delivered on 4 October 2013. The judgment of this court is being delivered on 15 February 2019... Interlocutory appeals have been frowned upon on several occasions by the Supreme Court. They are a waste of the clients’ resources and precious judicial time.'
*Where an interlocutory appeal is deployed as a stall tactic, it constitutes a clear abuse of court process.*
In *J.M.R. Ltd. v. MT Mother Benedicta (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1686) 323 (SC),* the Supreme Court held:
'It is unconscionable to pursue an interlocutory appeal that can be conveniently taken along with the appeal against the final decision, for the purpose of bringing about inordinate delay in the hearing and determination of the substantive claim.'
*See also Ecobank (Nig) Ltd & Ors v. Tempo Energy (Nig) Ltd & Ors (2025)* LPELR-81609(CA), per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA).
*I) PROCEDURE FOR INCORPORATING AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN THE MAIN/FINAL APPEAL*
A litigant aggrieved by an interlocutory ruling is not always required to interrupt trial by filing an immediate appeal. The law permits a party to reserve their grievance and incorporate the challenge to the interlocutory ruling into the main appeal filed after final judgment. However, specific procedural steps must be followed.
In *Ohuabunwa & Ors v. Nbagwu (2025) LPELR-80779(SC)* [also reported as Ohuabunwa v. Nbagwu (2026) 6 NWLR (Pt. 2040) 465 S.C.], Haruna Simon Tsammani, JSC, outlined the proper procedure:
'An appeal against an interlocutory ruling may be incorporated in the main appeal against the final decision or judgment of the Court. It is good practice to do so, but there is a prescribed procedure for so doing. To do that, the Appellant may opt to file the interlocutory appeal and later apply to consolidate same with the appeal against the final judgment, or seek leave when filing the appeal against the final decision, to include grounds of appeal affecting the interlocutory ruling.'
It is crucial for litigators to note that if the statutory period for appealing the interlocutory ruling has lapsed by the time final judgment is delivered, the appellant must seek leave to include grounds of appeal challenging that interlocutory ruling within the final appeal. *See Ugumba v. Nwawunwanne, (supra).*
*J) THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACJA 2015*
Historically, Nigerian courts possessed discretionary power to grant or refuse an application for a stay of proceedings during a criminal trial, as stated by Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Col. Halilu Akilu v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 122 at 1105 C-H to 167 A-B.
However, that position was changed by the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
In *Onnoghen v. FRN (2019) LPELR-47524(CA),* the Court of Appeal addressed whether an application for stay of proceedings can be entertained in criminal matters. Delivering the ruling, Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA (Pp 63-66 Paras C-D), held that the jurisdiction of courts to stay criminal proceedings has been removed by Sections 306 and 396(2) of the ACJA 2015.
Section 306 of the ACJA 2015 provides:
'An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the Court shall not be entertained.'
Section 396(2) of the ACJA 2015 further complements this by providing:
'After the plea has been taken, the defendant may raise any objection to the validity of the charge or the information at any time before judgment provided that such objection shall only be considered along with the substantive issues and a ruling thereon made at the time of delivery of judgment.'
To reinforce this position, the Court of Appeal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *Destra Investments Ltd v. FRN (2018) 1 SCM 66* at 72E-73A-C, where Akaahs, JSC, explained that Section 396(2) was specifically enacted to ensure speedy trials and eliminate delays:
'This appeal is most unnecessary as it seeks to question the exercise of discretion by the learned trial judge who decided to deal with the preliminary objection alongside the substantive case which charged the appellant and the 2nd respondent (who was 1st accused) with the offence of money laundering... I totally agree with the reply given by learned counsel for the 1st respondent to the effect that the application could not stop the Court from proceeding with the Substantive trial since Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 allows for a consideration of any objection to be done at the time of delivery of judgment in the substantive case... This provision allows for speedy trial of cases and is meant to obviate the difficulties often encountered by trial Judges who are most often bogged down by interlocutory appeals filed by defence counsel in order to stultify proceedings and if possible truncate trials of accused persons... The submission by learned senior counsel that the issue of jurisdiction is involved and so must be resolved first is not quite true.'
Based on these combined statutory provisions and judicial authorities, Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA, concluded in *Onnoghen v. FRN (supra)* that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to grant an order staying criminal proceedings.
Furthermore, a related issue arises when a party argues that a procedural law barring stay of proceedings cannot apply to an offence committed before the law was enacted. In *Azi v. FRN (2019) LPELR-46430(CA),* the Court of Appeal examined the applicability of procedural enactments, specifically Section 304 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2017 of Delta State.
Delivering the judgment, Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JCA (as she then was, Pp 5-10 Paras C-F), clarified the distinction between substantive law and procedural (adjectival) law:
*Substantive Law:* The law defining the offence and penalty must be the law in force at the time the alleged crime was committed.
*Procedural Law:* The law governing court practice and procedure is always the law in force at the time the trial step or court proceeding takes place.
This principle was established by the Supreme Court in *Gabriel Daudu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) LPELR-43637(SC),* where Akaahs, JSC, held:
'Let me state straightaway that it is the substantive law in operation at the time an offence is said to have been committed that has to be referred to when a person is being charged to Court... but the procedural law to be used would be the current one. Thus if the Evidence Act or the criminal procedure Law has been amended or replaced and a new one is in place at the time of trial, it is the amended or newly enacted Evidence Act/Criminal Procedure code that will be used to guide the trial... On the other hand, it is the current or extant Adjectival/procedural law that applies to such charge.'
This position is supported by long-standing judicial precedent, including *Rossek v. ACB (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382 at 475, per Bello, JSC; Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mike (2014) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 27; and First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Hon. Aniedi Okon Etim (2016) LPELR-41374(CA).* Consequently, state administration of criminal justice statutes apply immediately to pending criminal trials as procedural enactments.
Section 304 of the Delta State ACJL 2017 provides:
'Subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an application for stay of proceedings in respect of any criminal matter before the High Court or Magistrates' Court or any other Court within the State shall not be entertained until judgment is delivered.'
Beyond statutory bars, applying for a stay of proceedings in a criminal trial runs contrary to the constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed under *Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).*
In *Metuh v. FRN (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1575) 86,* the Supreme Court affirmed that applications for stay of criminal proceedings directly violate constitutional guarantees, holding:
'The appellant/applicant's motion for stay of proceedings is violently in conflict with the provisions of Section 36 (4) CFRN 1999 (as amended), Section 306 ACJA, 2015 and Section 40 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 as well as the plethora of case law authorities cited. The application is hereby refused and dismissed.'
Finally, Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JCA, pointed out in *Azi v. FRN (supra)* that under *Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act,* the appellate court cannot grant an order or injunction which the trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant. Because the trial court is statutorily prohibited from entertaining a stay of proceedings, the Court of Appeal similarly lacks the jurisdiction to grant such an application.
*CONCLUSION*
In all, interlocutory applications and decisions demands sound strategic judgment from trial counsel. While the law preserves a litigant's right to challenge interim errors made by a trial court, it strictly guards against using interlocutory appeals as instruments of delay. As established by appellate authorities, the safest and most efficient path for counsel in civil and criminal litigation is often to reserve minor interlocutory complaints until the end of the trial, incorporating them into the final appeal with the required leave of court. Where an immediate interlocutory appeal is unavoidable, counsel must strictly observe statutory deadlines (14 days in civil matters; 90 days in criminal matters), secure necessary leave where required, and remember that filing a notice of appeal alone does not halt the trial court's proceedings. By adhering to these procedural rules, lawyers protect their clients' rights while upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
