In law, a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination was distilled is deemed abandoned and liable to be struck out without much ado. Consequently, Ground 7 in the Notice of Appeal are hereby stuck out.
— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. General Telephone v. Asset (2017) – CA/L/336/2015
SHARE ON
In Agba v. Okogbue (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.91) 747, I observed at page 753 G-H as follows:- “It must be clearly borne in mind that a stay of execution is never granted as a matter of course because section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976, enacts that an appeal under part 2 of the Act shall not operate as a stay of execution. The grounds of appeal filed against the judgment must therefore be tested under a microscopic mirror if the application is not a ruse to delay the enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment by the respondent. In so doing, it is wrong to suggest that a court is acting as if it is hearing an appeal because it has pointed out the absurdity of a ground of appeal in considering whether it is prima facie an arguable ground”.
The lower court cannot hold simultaneously that the appeal is allowed in part yet proceeded to dismiss the appellant’s claims in its entirety particularly when the part of the appeal allowed has to do with the award of the sum of N70,000.00 share of profit to the appellant. To hold as the lower court did was an obvious error which ought not to be allowed to stand. – Onnoghen JSC. Alade v. Alic (2010)
Aliyu v. Hantsi (2026) 6 NWLR (Pt. 2040) 573 AT 589 – 590, H – B: ‘At any rate, it is a trite principle of law under our administration of justice system that an appeal is a continuation of the action commenced before the trial court and so I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that an appeal is a continuation of the action commenced before the trial court through to the lower court. Parties and indeed this court are bound by the issues as decided before the courts below. In Mohammed v. FRN (2025) LPELR-80420 (SC) this court held that – “It is elementary that an appeal is a continuation of the matter begun from the trial court, and so new issues cannot be raised on appeal … Therefore, the courts are resolute in affirming that a party must be consistent in the case he presents and he is not allowed to change his case from one level of court to another.”’
Generally, an appeal is regarded as a continuation of the original suit rather than the inception of a new action. Because of this, in an appeal, parties are normally confined to their case as pleaded in the Court of first instance. They are not allowed to make a new and different case on appeal. They are not allowed to raise in such appeal new Issues without the express leave of Court or to proffer new evidence without such leave. An appeal, being a judicial examination by a higher Court of the decision of an inferior Court, it follows that such examination should normally and more appropriately be confined to the facts and issues that came before the inferior Court for decision.
– Oputa, JSC. Adegoke v. Adesanya (1989)
As observed earlier, there is a finding by the court below that there was a pending appeal before it as Appeal No. CA/L/133/93 which was entered on May 2, 1995. Now, in accordance with the provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 (as amended) an appeal is said to be entered in the court when the record of proceedings in the trial court has been received in the Registry of the court. See: Order 1 Rule 22, Court of Appeal Rules (1981) (as amended); Order 4 Rule 10, Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 (as amended). Once it is so entered, an appeal is then said to be pending. The Rule governing the control of proceedings during pendency of an appeal is that after an appeal has been entered and until it has been finally disposed of, the court shall be seised of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto and except as may be otherwise provided in the Rules, every application therein shall be made to the court and not to the court below (i.e. the trial), but any application may be filed in the trial court for transmission to the court below. See Order 4, Rule 11. Thus, in pursuance of the above provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules, the trial court will have no competence or jurisdiction to decide on any application whether on notice or ex-parte in relation to an appeal which the trial court has become FUNCTUS OFFICIO. If the trial court takes any step thereon, except for the purposes of transmitting the processes so filed to the Court of Appeal, that step taken will be declared a nullity.
— T. Muhammad, JSC. VAB Petroleum v. Momah (2013) – SC.99/2004
Nevertheless, the court, especially the appellate court, has a duty to examine the totality of the evidence tendered before the trial court in order to be satisfied that what the parties had pleaded is in consonance with the evidence led at the trial.
— Wali JSC. Chime v Chime (2001) – SC 179/1991
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry