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!

ALL THE DEFENDANTS’ NAMES NEED NOT BE LISTED IN A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT THAT OF THE APPELLANT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

F.R.N. v. Lamido (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2054) 351 at 375—376, A per Umar JSC: ‘In criminal appeals, it is generally not mandatory for an appellant to include the names of co-accused at the trial court in his notice of appeal, if those co-accused are not affected by the appeal. The fundamental principle guiding criminal appeals is that an appeal is a challenge by an aggrieved party (the appellant) against a decision of a lower court that directly affects him. The notice of appeal serves to formally notify the appellate court and the respondent, typically the state or as in this case at the lower court, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, of the appellant’s intention to appeal and the specific grounds upon which the appeal is based, pertaining to his own conviction or sentence.The primary purpose of a notice of appeal is to identify the appellant, the respondent, the decision being appealed against, and the grounds of appeal. The focus is on the appellants grievance with the judgment of the lower court as it relates to his individual case. The Court of Appeal Rules generally outline the requirements for a notice of appeal, which center on the appellant and the judgment or decision affecting him.Therefore, it is utterly unnecessary for an appellant to endorse his co-accused as part of the parties to the appeal when the appeal is for himself only. The rules do not impose a mandate on a sole appellant to include his co-accused, this is because it implies that the lower court was being invited to determine the rights or involvement of other defendants in the appeal filed there at. Conversely, if a co-accused is not appealing, or has been acquitted, or their case is entirely distinct from the appellant’s grounds of appeal, there is no legal or procedural requirement to name them in the notice of appeal. Therefore, including unaffected parties would be superfluous and could potentially complicate the appeal process by introducing irrelevant details. I agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that “all appeal shall be by way of rehearing,” however, a rehearing is distinct from a re-trial. The appeal is not a re-trial of all parties involved in the original case, but rather a review of the judgment as it pertains to the specific appellant and his challenge to the findings or sentence against him.’

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

notice of appeal

IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO INCLUDE CO–ACCUSED NAME IN NOTICE OF APPEAL

In F.R.N. v. Lamido (2026) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2057) 215 at 243, A—C per Umar JSC: ‘In criminal appeals, it is generally not mandatory for an appellant to include the names of co-accused at the trial court in his notice of appeal, if those co-accused are not affected by the appeal. The fundamental principle guiding criminal appeals is that an appeal is a challenge by an aggrieved party (the appellant) against a decision of a lower court that directly affects him. The notice of appeal serves to formally notify the appellate court and the respondent, typically the State or as in this case at the lower court, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, of the appellant’s intention to appeal and the specific grounds upon which the appeal is based, pertaining to his own conviction or sentence.’

Was this dictum helpful?

PERSONAL SERVICE OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS A REQUIREMENT OF LAW

With profound respect to the erudite senior counsel, this cannot be. As this Court explained, in a most magisterial manner, the term irregularity in respect of procedure, is often construed to denote something that does not fundamentally taint or besmirch a procedure as to render it invalid or a nullity. In other words, an irregularity is deemed to be curable. However, personal service of an originating process, like a Notice of Appeal, is a fundamental requirement of the law.

– C.C. Nweze JSC. Odey v. Alaga (2021) – SC.9/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SERVED PERSONALLY

By Order 2 Rule 3 (1) (b) of the Supreme Court Rules, Notice of Appeal is required to be served personally. This Court has in a number of cases held that the Notice of Appeal is an originating process and failure to serve same personally on a Respondent constitutes a fundamental vice which renders the appeal incompetent as this Court will be deprived of the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in any form whatsoever except to make an order to strike out the said appeal.

– S.C. OSEJI, J.S.C. Odey v. Alaga (2021) – SC.9/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

A COMPETENT NOTICE OF APPEAL

A competent notice of appeal is like having the right key for a particular door. The notice of appeal is the key to the door to this Court. Without the right key, any effort to gain entrance through the door is an exercise in futility. It is void and therefore a nullity. In the immortal words of Lord Denning, MR in McFoy vs UAC (1961) 3 ALL ER 169 @ 172: “If an act is void, then it is in law, a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably bad … And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.” See also: Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Skenconsult Vs Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6.

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Francis v. FRN (2020) – SC.810/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

APPEAL CANNOT BE DECIDED WHERE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS COMPETENT

My lords, it is of utmost importance and I so bear it in my mind that it is only when a notice of appeal is competent that a determination of it on the merit will be feasible. In other words, where a notice of appeal is incompetent, it is liable to be terminated in limine and it would be of no moment no matter how meritorious it would have been if it were to be considered on the merit. In law, one of the most essential requirement or condition precedent for the competence of an appeal to be determined on the merit by the Court is a valid notice and grounds of appeal, in the absence of which such an appeal would be rendered incompetent and thus incapable of being determined on the merit by this Court for without jurisdiction there can be no competence of any cause or matter or appeal before the Court. It has long been settled in our law that jurisdiction is a fundamental one and thus can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal for the first time as in the instant appeal by either of the parties or even by the Court suo motu and once raised it must first be determined one way or the other by the Court before any other issue touching on the merit or otherwise of the respective cases of the parties can be enquired and be determined on the merit by the Court. This is so because in the absence of jurisdiction there can be no competence in the 1st Respondent’s claim to be heard and determined on the merit, since jurisdiction is the life blood of every cause or action and thus where the requisite jurisdiction is found to be lacking, that is indeed the end of the matter. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 581.

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. University of Lagos v. Mbaso (2018) – CA/L/775/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.