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!

CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE FRESH EVIDENCE CAN BE RECEIVED ON APPEAL

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Finally My Lords, on this application, I wish to state that fresh evidence is not received as a matter of course. There are conditions which must co-exist before the court can grant this type of application as can be garnered from decided authorities of this court which include but not limited to Onwubuariri & ors v Igboasoyi & ors (2001) 3 NWLR (pt. 1234) and Adegbite v Amosun (2016) 5 NWLR (pt. 1536) 405 at 422, cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the 2nd Respondent. Simply put, the conditions are that: (1) the fresh evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial, (2) such evidence, if admitted would have important effect on the subject of the appeal, (3) such evidence, ex-facie, is 43 apparently capable of being believed, (4) such evidence would have influenced the judgment of the lower court in favour of the appellants, had it been available and (5) and if such evidence is admitted, further evidences from the opposing party will not be needed.

— I. Okoro JSC. Atiku, PDP v. INEC, Tinubu, APC (SC/CV/935/2023, 26th day of October, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

appeal

WHERE ERROR OF LAW BY TRIAL JUDGE, APPEAL COURT WILL REVERSE THE DECISION

A decision of a lower court on any point will be reversed by the appellate court where error of law committed by the lower court is fatal because it has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

– Adio, JSC. UBN v. Ozigi (1994)

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?

INTEREST TO BE SHOWN BY AN INTERESTED PERSON TO APPEAL

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTY CANNOT RAISE NEW ARGUMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL WITHOUT LEAVE

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

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?

ONLY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES WHICH ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN CLAIM CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE SUPREME COURT

✓ It is this clear that the jurisdiction to entertain any suit which seeks to enforce the observance of a fundamental right under chapter 4 of the Constitution, including the right of any person not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment guaranteed under section 31(1)(a), of the 1979 Constitution, ties only with the High Court of a State or a Federal High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is appellate and not original. See Attorney-General of Anambra State and others v. Attorney-General of the Federation and others (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.302) 692. However, constitutional issues which pertain only to the breach of a fundamental right in the course of trial or hearing before the lower courts may be raised in an appeal to the Supreme Court. Such issues are those that relate mainly to breach of the right to fair hearing and the right to personal liberty under sections 32 and 33 of the Constitution. Other rights such as right to life and those to private and family life, peaceful assembly and association and freedom of the press can only be enforced through a substantive action in the appropriate High Court and cannot be raised in an appellate court, including the Supreme Court, as being incidental to the proceedings in the lower courts. The appellate courts, inclusive of the Supreme Court, have no original jurisdiction to entertain, determine or pronounce on questions relating to an alleged breach of fundamental rights, especially where the issue involved or the redress invoked is not directly relevant or intrinsic to the determination, on the merit, of the appeal before them. — Iguh JSC. Onuoha v State (1998) – SC. 24/1996

✓ The death row phenomenon was only raised obliquely and clearly extrinsically by the appellant in this appeal. The issue raised is whether the appellant’s confinement under sentence of death for an alleged unnecessarily prolonged length of time from the date of his conviction amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to section 31(1)(a) of the Constitution thereby warranting the quashing of his death sentence and substituting the same with life imprisonment. This issue, in my view, is not properly before this court. The jurisdiction of this court to entertain and determine such constitutional question will only arise on appeal after both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have considered and adjudicated on the issue. This is exactly the procedure adopted in the foreign cases that were cited before us. — Iguh JSC. Onuoha v State (1998) – SC. 24/1996

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.