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!

AN APPEAL IS A CONTINUATION OF THE CASE AT THE TRIAL COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

An appeal is generally taken to be a continuation of the original case started at the first instance court. It is not a new cause of action, See: Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.114) 171 at p.211; Adegoke Motors v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.109) 250. It is always confined to the consideration of the record which was forwarded from the court below with no new testimony or issues raised in the appellate court. Focussing on the record of appeal placed before it, the appeal court “rehears” the case and may make its own evaluation of the evidence contained in the record of appeal. From that record, the appeal court may review the findings and inferences of fact and, where it considers it proper, may substitutes its own view of the facts for that of the trial court. It may also review the whole proceedings including all the interlocutory decisions given in the trial. It may reject conclusions of the trial court from facts which do not flow from the evidence or may be regarded as perverse. See: Okotie-Eboh and Ors v. Okotie-Eboh and Ors 1986) 1 SC 479 at p.507; Onowan and Anor v. Iserhein (1976) NWLR 263. What the court below did is akin to this principle of practice and procedure.

— I.T. Muhammad, JSC. EFET v INEC (SC.207/2009, 28 January 2011)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

appeal

WHERE NO APPEAL AGAINST SPECIFIC FINDINGS, THOSE FINDINGS REMAIN UNASSAILABLE

The excerpts above of the trial Court findings and conclusions were not appealed against at the lower Court which throws up the settled law that where there is no appeal against specific findings of fact made at the trial Court, those findings remain for all time unassailable and deemed accepted as representing the true state of affairs. It therefore becomes futile trying to smuggle those same issues at another level of appeal since they have in effect been conceded by the party against whom they were decided and remains valid and binding on all parties forever. I rely on Anyanwu v Ogunewe (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 738) 1012 at 1037; Nwankwo v Yar’Adua (2010) All FWLR (Pt.534) 1; L.A. & A.C. Ltd v U.B.A. Plc (2014) All FWLR (Pt.739) 1080 at 1094.

— M.U. Peter-Odili, JSC. MTN v. Corporate (2019) – SC.674/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

AN APPEAL DOES NOT ACT AS AN AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION

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”.

Was this dictum helpful?

APPEAL: WHERE LEAVE IS REQUIRED BUT NOT OBTAINED, APPEAL IS INCOMPETENT

Consequently, in law an appeal which requires the prior leave of Court but was filed without the requisite leave of Court is wholly and completely incompetent. It would have no redeeming feature to be considered on the merit no matter how tempting the zeal to do substantial justice on the merit to the parties may be. See Sections 240; 243 (1), (2) and (4); 254C (5) and (6) 3(2) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). See also Skye Bank v. Iwu (supra).

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

Was this dictum helpful?

REQUIREMENTS TO SUCCEED IN AN APPEAL

In order to succeed in this appeal, the appellant must show that the decision of the lower Court affirming the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, either because the evaluation of evidence and findings of fact were not based on a proper and dispassionate appraisal of the evidence on record, or the trial Court did not make proper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify, or that the findings were reached as a result of a wrong application of substantive law or procedure, or that there was a miscarriage of justice manifest on the face of the record. See: Igbi Vs The State (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 648) 169; Shehu Vs The State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 112; Itu Vs The State (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 443.

— Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Ogunleye Tobi v The State (2019) – SC.714/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

APPEAL TO NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: APPEAL ON CHAPTER IV IS OF RIGHT

In law when an appeal against the decision of the Court below, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, borders squarely on allegation of any breach of Chapter IV of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) dealing with the provisions relating to fundamental rights, such an appeal lie as of right and no leave of Court is required. So also is an appeal against the decision of the Court below in criminal matters lie as of right without any need for leave of Court. However, where an appeal against the decision of the Court below in civil matter borders on grounds other than grounds alleging breach of any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), happily the law is now firmly settled that it can only lie with the leave of Court. See Skye Bank v. Iwu (2017) LPELR-42595 (SC).

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

Was this dictum helpful?

RESPONDENT CANNOT COUCH ISSUE OUTSIDE APPELLANT’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Be that as it may, it would therefore not be necessary to go into the second issue formulated for determination in this notice of objection. But I will like to comment and emphasize that a Respondent is not permitted to couch any issue outside the perimeters of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal unless such a Respondent has filed a Respondent’s notice or Cross-Appeal. And where an issue for determination is not related to the grounds of appeal it would be incompetent and it ought to be struck out. See:- Falola v. UBN (2005) 7 NWLR Part 924 Page 405 at 424.

— J.O. Bada, JCA. Conoil v Vitol (2011) – CA/A/213/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.