–
HILARIO CAMPOS
V.
OMOLARA MARTINS
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
31ST DAY OF MAY, 1935
2PLR/1934/12 (WACA)
OTHER CITATIONS(S)
2PLR/1934/12 (WACA)
(1935) II WACA PP. 331 – 332
LEX (1935) – II WACA PP. 331-332
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
BUTLER-LLOYD, ACTING C.J., NIGERIA
AITKEN, J.
BARTON, J.
–
BETWEEN:
HILARIO CAMPOS — Plaintiff
AND
OMOLARA MARTINS — Defendant
–
REPRESENTATION
O. Alakija — for Plaintiff
W. Wells-Palmer — for Defendant
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION — REFEREE:- Referral to a referee — Nature of relationship created — Fees for services — Application for refund — When will not be granted
–
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ISSUE(S)
ACTION:- Case referred and referee’s remuneration fixed — Case settled out of Court and subsequently struck out — Application for refund of referee’s fees struck out — Motion to set aside or vary order of Reference — Opinion of Court sought — How treated
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held:
It is not competent for a Court to review an interlocutory order made in the course of a case once final judgment has been given.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint Opinion was delivered:
BUTLER-LLOYD, ACTING C.J., NIGERIA, AITKEN AND BARTON, JJ.
This is a case stated by Graham Paul, J. for the opinion of this Court.
The relevant facts are as follows:
On 26th April, 1934, an order was made by consent of the parties referring the case to a referee whose remuneration was fixed at ten guineas, five to be paid by each side.
This sum was paid to the referee shortly afterwards.
The parties having composed their differences informed the Court that the case was settled, and it was struck out on October 1st, 1934.
On 21st March, 1935, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order to the referee to refund the five guineas paid by him but this motion was dismissed on the ground that the order under which the payment was made still stood.
On the 1st April, 1935, the present motion was filed to set aside or vary the order of reference. Notice of the motion was given to the referee.
The learned trial Judge after hearing argument did not in terms review the order of reference, but indicated that he considered he ought to do so and order the referee to file particulars of the work done in order that a proper remuneration might be fixed by the Court, leaving the parties to recover any excess by action.
An interesting point was raised as to whether the relationship between a referee and the parties is an ordinary contractual one or whether the referee is to be regarded as an officer of the Court.
We think there is much to be said for the latter view, but his position as such would surely terminate when the suit was finally disposed of.
Whatever view be taken as to this, we are of opinion that it is not competent for a Court to review an interlocutory order made in the course of a case when once final judgment has been given.
In our opinion the motion for review ought to be dismissed.
The referee will have costs in this Court assessed at seven guineas.
–