It is also trite that an appeal is a continuation of the original action. The parties are therefore confined to their case as pleaded and presented at the Court of first instance. See: Ngige Vs Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.999) 1 @ 225; Adegoke Motors Vs Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 @ 266; Alhassan Vs Ishaku (2016) LPELR – 40083 (SC) @ 680.
— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. MTN v. Corporate (2019) – SC.674/2014
SHARE ON
While I am tempted to put an end to this petition at this stage, but realising that this Court is not the final Court on the matter, I am constrained to look at the merit of the petition. — H.S. Tsammani, JCA. APM v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/04/2023
The settled position of the law applicable in the given circumstance is as straight forward as it comes and that is to the effect that a decision of Court against which no Appeal has been filed is deemed accepted by the party against whom the decision was entered and therefore binding. In the same token, the law is trite that a decision or conclusion or finding not appealed against is deemed correct and binding between the parties. See the cases of ODIASE v. AGHO and ORS (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 170 AT 176; MELIFONWU v. EGBUJI (1982) 9 SC. 145 AT 165; BIARIKO v. EDEH-OGWUILE (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 726) 235; IYOHO v. EFFIONG (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) 31; and S.P.D.C. v. X.M. FED. LTD (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1004) 189 where the Supreme Court per ONNOGHEN, JSC had this to say on the subject: “It is settled law that a decision of a Court not Appealed against remains valid, subsisting, and binding between the parties and is presumed acceptable to the parties.”
— F.O. Oho, JCA. Nasiru v State (2016) – CA/S/78C/2015
It is to be seen that it can be said that filing more than a notice of appeal and using more than one could be inelegant, untidy or even confusing, but the law and its practice have had it settled that the inelegance or untidiness are not enough reason for rendering those notices of appeal incompetent or invalid as to do that would be taking technicality too far and not covered by law.
– Peter-Odili, JSC. Tukur v. Uba (2012) – SC.390/2011
It is elementary law that this court has no jurisdiction to consider the issue which was only decided by the trial court. – Musdapher JSC. Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007)
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)
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
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry