STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ISSUE OF COMPETENCE SHOULD BE RAISED VIA NOTICE OF APPEAL

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

HEYDEN PETROLEUM LIMITED v. TOP LEADER SHIPPING INC (2018) LPELR-46680(CA) stated: “A preliminary objection that an appeal should not be heard and determined on the merit is a serious issue and if founded on grounds alleging incompetence of the appeal it should be taken seriously and considered and resolved one way or the other since without competence there is really no basis for adjudication and decision on the merit by a Court. Thus an issue bordering on the competence or incompetence of the entire grounds of appeal in an appeal is one which can validly be raised by means of a notice of preliminary objection and not by way of motion of notice.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

notice of appeal

FILING OF TWO NOTICES OF APPEAL IS NOT INCOMPETENT

The phrase “…after the notice of appeal” does not envisage multiple notices of appeal. There are similar provisions in the High Court and Court of Appeal Rules. In any case, it is an affront to logic and common sense to argue that an appellant can file more than one notice of appeal without indicating on which one he relies. Be that as it may, the mere fact of filing multiple notices of appeal does not render the appeal incompetent, Akuneziri v. Okenwa (2000) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 25, First Bank of Nigeria Plc. v. T.S.A. Industries Ltd. (2010) 4-7 SC (Pt. 1) 242. The 1st respondent read the appellants’ brief and made a decision to rely on one of the two notices filed within time. Not only was the 1st respondent not misled by the two notices of appeal, he did not disclose any injury he suffered for which he could seek redress. He cannot be heard to argue that another respondent elected to rely on the other notice of appeal.

— N.S. Ngwuta JSC. Yaki (Rtd) & Anor. V. Senator Bagudu & Ors. (SC.722/2015, 13 Nov 2015)

Was this dictum helpful?

APPELLANT ENTITLED TO FILE MORE THAN ONE NOTICE OF APPEAL

There is also no doubt and it cannot be disputed that an appellant is entitled to file more than one Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed for so doing by the Rules of court. But whenever there are more than one Notices of Appeal and all the said Notices were filed within the time so prescribed, the Appellant cannot use or rely upon more than just one of the Notices of Appeal to argue the appeal. He must choose which of them he intends to rely upon.

– O. Ariwoola, JSC. Tukur v. Uba (2012) – SC.390/2011

Was this dictum helpful?

AN AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL OBLITERATES THE EARLIER NOTICE

Ordinarily, an amended notice of appeal completely obliterates the original notice of appeal amended. It no longer avails the appellant either to formulate his issues for the determination of the appeal therefrom or to argue his appeal on the original notice amended … I agree with the 3rd Respondent that it is the law that an appellant cannot rely on and argue his appeal on more than one notice of appeal because an issue in an appeal cannot be determined on two separate filed notices of appeal. CHUKWU v. THE STATE (2007) All FWLR 1224 at 1240. It also the law that a withdrawn notice of appeal is taken as abandoned. Upon amendment of the notice of appeal upon leave of Court, the amendment goes to the roots and the amended notice of appeal, superseding the original notice of appeal, has the effect of completely obliterating the original notice of appeal which is taken to have been abandoned. Technically, it no longer avails the appellant to rely on the original notice of appeal, it having been amended and deemed abandoned.

— Ejembi Eko, JSC. Oboh & Anor v. NFL (SC.841/2016, January 28, 2022)

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTIES IN NOTICE OF APPEAL SHOULD BE SAME IN AN APPLICATION SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT ON SAME SUIT

The Notice of Appeal which is the foundation of this application has four parties as respondents, whereas the application has only three parties, exclusive of the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court who is the 4th respondent in the Notice of Appeal. The Chief Registrar shouldn’t have been excluded/omitted from the application before us, as, if the appeal is supposed to involve the Chief Registrar, then the Chief Registrar is supposed to be involved in the application. The parties in both processes should be the same, and none should be excluded unless it has been formerly withdrawn. In this respect I endorse the submission of Chief Olanipekun. SAN on the issue of the parties, and I agree that the applicant cannot change the parties in the notice of appeal in this application.

— A.M. Muktar, JSC. Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. AKS Steel Nigeria Ltd. (2011) – SC. 101/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

LEAVE FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL MAY ONLY BE GRANTED UPON APPLICATION BY A PARTY

The periods of time within which to give a notice of appeal against the decision of the Court below to this Court may be extended by the Court at the instance of a person/s who intend/s to appeal to the Court in both civil and criminal cases, in deserving cases. A valid and competent Notice of Appeal can be given or filed after the expiration or outside the periods of time stipulated under the provisions of Section 27 (2) of the Act, when and only if, the periods of the time was extended by the Court, as a condition precedent. Accordingly, the prior permission or leave of the Court, by way of extension of the relevant period of time within which to give the notice of appeal, is necessary and required for the validity and competence of a notice of such an appeal to the Court. Without the prior permission first sought and obtained by an Appellant for extension of time to appeal before giving or filing a Notice of Appeal in the Court, a purported Notice of Appeal given or filed after the expiration or outside the limited period of time, would be fatally and incurably, invalid and incompetent, thereby depriving the Court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over the appeal. See Amadi v. INEC (2012) LPELR – 7831 (SC), Awhinashi v. Oteri (1984) 5 SC, 38, Enweliku v. State (1970) 1 Ail NWLR, 57, Peba v. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC, 76.

— M.L. Garba JSC. Kingsley Okoro V. The State (SC.85/2013, 17 Feb 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

IN CRIMINAL CASES, NOTICE OF APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED THIRTY DAYS AFTER JUDGEMENT DELIVERY

After hearing the appeal on the 24th November, 2022 and at the conference of the Hon. Justices on the Panel before whom the appeal was argued, it was observed that the Notice of Appeal filed on the 6th February, 2013 by the Appellant against the judgment of the Court below delivered on the 11th December, 2012, was filed out of the period of time prescribed by the provisions of Section 27 (2) (b) of the Supreme Court Act 2004 which stipulates that:- “The periods prescribed for giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are:- (b) in an appeal in a criminal case, thirty days from the date of the decision appealed against.” It is clear from these provisions that the period of time within which the notice of an appeal against the decision of the Court below to this Court in a criminal matter, is limited to thirty (30) days from the date the judgment appealed against, was given or delivered by that Court. Therefore, for a notice of appeal against the decision of the Court below to this Court in a criminal matter to be properly, validly and competently be given, filed and brought before this Court, in accordance and compliance with the provisions, it must be given or filed within thirty (30) days from the date the Court below delivered the judgment in question. It follows, then, that a notice of appeal given against the decision of the Court below to this Court in a criminal case, after the expiration or outside of the period of days (30 days) prescribed and limited in the provisions, would have been given out of the statutory period of time limited for so doing, would be invalid and incompetent.

— M.L. Garba JSC. Kingsley Okoro V. The State (SC.85/2013, 17 Feb 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.