at least illustrative of whether an application for absolution of the instance is interlocutory - or not. [13] It was held in NAFINU: The threefold attributes, drawn from Zweni and referred to by the court in Knouwds, ‘[17] have been frequently followed by this court. In Zweni, the court made the distinction between and the phrase also employed in the Supreme and High Court Acts on the ‘judgments orders’ – – one hand which are appealable and on the other hand which are not. ‘rulings’ [18] As was stressed by this court in Shetu Trading, the principles set out in Zweni on the question of appealability are in but are and not are ‘not cast stone’ ‘illustrative immutable’. They but not rigid principles to be thus ‘useful guidelines applied invariably’. [19] Judgments and orders with these attributes can thus be appealed against as of right to this court. Section 18(3) creates an exception to this general principle. Interlocutory orders or costs orders only left to the discretion of the High Court cannot be appealed against except with leave of the High Court, or where refused, on petition where granted by this court. Leave was not sought in this instance.’ Absolution of the instance, it appears when refused is one of those orders that [14] cannot be appealed against, without leave as contemplated in of the Act. The s 18 (3) refusal was a determination by the court in a very intermediate stage of the case and in
at least illustrative of whether an application for absolution of the instance is interlocutory - or not. [13] It was held in NAFINU: ‘[17] The threefold attributes, drawn from Zweni and referred to by the court in Knouwds, have been frequently followed by this court. In Zweni, the court made the distinction between ‘judgments and orders’ – the phrase also employed in the Supreme and High Court Acts – on the one hand which are appealable and ‘rulings’ on the other hand which are not. [18] As was stressed by this court in Shetu Trading, the principles set out in Zweni on the question of appealability are ‘not cast in stone’ but are ‘illustrative and not immutable’. They are thus ‘useful guidelines but not rigid principles to be applied invariably’. [19] Judgments and orders with these attributes can thus be appealed against as of right to this court. Section 18(3) creates an exception to this general principle. Interlocutory orders or costs orders only left to the discretion of the High Court cannot be appealed against except with leave of the High Court, or where refused, on petition where granted by this court. Leave was not sought in this instance.’ [14] Absolution of the instance, it appears when refused is one of those orders that cannot be appealed against, without leave as contemplated in s 18 (3) of the Act. The refusal was a determination by the court in a very intermediate stage of the case and in