Constitutional appeal jurisdiction: Article 133(1) applies to post-Constitution High Court judgments, excluding reliance on Article 135

Article 133(1) governed an application for leave to appeal from a High Court judgment delivered after the Constitution, because the constitutional provision directly applied to the judgment sought to be appealed from and imposed the fresh valuation requirement for civil appeals. Article 135 could not be invoked to preserve an earlier appellate right merely because the suit was instituted before the Constitution or because a pre-existing right of appeal had once existed; that article operates only where Articles 133 and 134 do not apply. The Court further indicated that prior Federal Court jurisdiction required a final judgment, decree or order made before the Constitution. The petitioners therefore could not avoid the constitutional valuation requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether Article 133(1) of the Constitution governed an application for leave to appeal from a High Court judgment delivered after the Constitution, and whether Article 135 preserved a pre-Constitution right of appeal to the Supreme Court on the footing of the earlier appellate law.

Analysis: The appellate scheme before the Constitution had moved from the Privy Council to the Federal Court through statutory enactments, and Article 133(1) introduced a fresh constitutional requirement of valuation for appeals from High Court judgments in civil proceedings. Article 135 operates only in matters to which Articles 133 and 134 do not apply, and the expression cannot be read to exclude a post-Constitution High Court judgment merely because the suit had been instituted earlier or because an earlier appellate right had once existed. A vested right of appeal does not survive in the abstract when the former appellate forum has been replaced and the new constitutional provision directly governs the judgment sought to be appealed from. The Court also indicated that some final judgment, decree or order must have been passed before the Constitution for the earlier Federal Court jurisdiction to be treated as an existing exercisable jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Article 133(1) applied, and the petitioners could not rely on Article 135 to avoid the constitutional valuation requirement.

---