Anibaba v. Badejo [2013] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 42 at 62 paras. E-H, per Saulawa, JCA:

• A notice of preliminary objection, for all intents and purposes, is an interlocutory motion.

• On discretionary power of court to determine interlocutory application with substantive suit.

“In the instant case, it’s so obvious, as copiously alluded above, that issues have already been so considerably joined by the parties in their respective pleadings. By the complex nature and circumstances surrounding the case, there is some wisdom in the lower court’s decision, in holding that the issues raised in the preliminary objection could not appropriately be decided without delving into the merits of the substantive case itself. Undoubtedly, the decision of the lower court in question is neither novel, nor repugnant to well laid down principles…. Indeed, a trial court, as in the instant case, has the far-reaching discretionary power to opt to determine an interlocutory application along with the substantive suit where the justice of the case so demands.”

Notes:

Undoubtedly, adopting such procedure aids with the faster resolution of a case. A party dissatisfied may file an appeal against the decision on the preliminary objection and the substantive suit where necessary. Although courts have been encouraged to determine objections based on jurisdiction as quickly as possible. The point to be appreciated is that a preliminary objection comfortably ranks as an interlocutory application and can be treated as such in deserving cases. It is interlocutory because it is usually brought during the pendency of a suit (or appeal) before final judgment.