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
A counsel cannot make out a case not pleaded by a litigant in his address before the court. Where the appellant did not predicate her case on customary law before the lower court, she cannot raise same here afresh before this court. The simple answer is that an appeal is not a new action but a continuation of the matter which is the subject – mater of the appeal. Hence an appellant cannot be allowed to set up a case different to that which was made out at the court below. This is because the appellate court would not have had the benefit of the opinion of the lower court on the issue. Eze V. A- G Rivers State (2001) 18 NWLR pt, 746, pg. 524 Ejiofodomi V. Okonkwo (1982) II SC 74 Dwege V. Iyamahan (1983) 8 SC 76 A-G Oyo State V. Fairlakes Hotels Limited (1988) 5 NWLR pt. 92, pg. 1 FRN V. Zebra Energy Limited (2002) 3 NWLR pt. 754, pg. 471.
— O.O. Adekeye, JSC. Agboola v UBA (2011) – SC.86/2003
The word “appeal” is simply to make a formal request to somebody in authority “for a decision to be changed” Oxford Learners Dictionary. In an Appeal, the lower Court’s decision is submitted to a higher Court “for review and possible reversal” see Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.
— A.A. Augie, JSC. Usman v The State (2019) – SC.228/2016
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
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
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)
The interest which will support an application for leave to appeal as interested party must be genuine and legally recognisable interest in respect of a decision which prejudicially affects such a person. And for a person to qualify as a person interested, the applicant must show not only that he is a person having interest in the matter but also that the order or judgement of the Court below which he is seeking leave to appeal against prejudicially affects his interest. In other words, to succeed in the application, the applicants must show that they are persons who are aggrieved or persons against whom decisions have been produced which have wrongfully refused them something or wrongly affected their title to something. See: Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 669) 1022, In re: Ugadu (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 93) 189 at 202 per Karibi Whyte JSC; Usanga and Ors v. Okada and Ors (1964) 1 All NLR 36; Ikonne v. Commissioner of Police (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 36) 473; Dairo v. Gbadamosi In re: Afolabi (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 63) 18 and Ademola v. Sodipo (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 253) 260 261.
— K.B. Aka’ahs JSC. Abdullahi v. Nigerian Army (SC.433/2010(R), 25 MAY 2018)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry