It must be remembered that under the rules of the court, a cross- appeal must be treated as a distinct appeal having all the tapestry of an appeal. It is akin to a counter-claim before a trial court.
– Musdapher, JSC. Atta v. Ezeanah (2000)
JPoetry » cross-appeal » CROSS-APPEAL IS A DISTINCT APPEAL
It must be remembered that under the rules of the court, a cross- appeal must be treated as a distinct appeal having all the tapestry of an appeal. It is akin to a counter-claim before a trial court.
– Musdapher, JSC. Atta v. Ezeanah (2000)
SHARE ON
A party who has judgment in his favour and who has not cross-appealed or who has not taken out a respondent’s notice is not entitled to raise any adverse issue arising from the judgment. The only way to show grievance of a judgment is by way of appeal and in certain cases by way of a respondent’s notice. In view of the fact that the appellant had judgment in the High Court, all that she should have done, if not satisfied with the statement of the trial Judge on the issue of payment of the processing fee ofN300.00 by the respondent was to commence a cross-appeal. In the absence of that, the appellant has to accept the decision of the High Court with all its sweetness and bitterness cum onere. And what is more, the judgment before this court on appeal is the judgment of the Court of Appeal and not the judgment of the High Court. In the circumstances, I shall discountenance all the negative issues raised against the judgment of the learned trial Judge by counsel for the appellant.
— N. Tobi, JSC. Ezennah v Atta (2004) – SC.226/2000
It appears then that what the Respondent is asking for is a variation of the judgment of the lower court with regard to damages and the award by this court of “appropriate and commensurate damages.” The law is that the Respondents cannot challenge the judgment of the lower court given in their favour without first filing a cross-appeal or a Respondents Notice. See Oguma v. I.B.W.A. (1988) NWLR (Pt. 73) 658.
– Iyizoba, JCA. Emirate v. Aforka (2014) – CA/L/285/2011
Replying on points of law, the appellant in his reply brief filed on the service of the respondent’s brief on him cites the decisions in Ajayi V. Adebiyi (2012) II NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137, Ogunbadejo V. Owoyemi (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 271) 517 and Ogunsola V. Nicon (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1211) 225 in rightfully submitting that the role of the respondent in an appeal is to defend the judgment appealed against. Having not crossed appealed, it is argued, the respondent herein cannot seek the reversal of the judgment of the lower Court. I entirely agree with learned appellant’s counsel. In Ogunbadejo V. Owoyemi (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 271) 517 rightfully cited and relied upon by learned counsel, this Court restated the principle that the respondent who has not cross-appealed against the very judgment on appeal cannot seek the reversal or variation of any findings of the Court below.
— M.D. Muhammad, JSC. Mati Musa v The State (2019) – SC.902/2014
I also agree that the decision in the main appeal, has, effectively and for all practical purposes, overtaken and rendered the cross appeal of no useful utilitarian value or worth to the cross Appellants to warrant a consideration on the merit by the Court. – Garba JSC. APC v. Obaseki (2021)
A respondent, without a cross-appeal or Respondent’s Notice, may adopt the issues formulated by the Appellant or formulate his own issues provided the issues so formulated are derivable from the grounds of appeal.
— N.S. Ngwuta, JSC. Odogwu v State (2013) – SC.122/2009
When this Appeal was heard on 16 December, 2019, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, D. Ameh informed the Court that his brief was irregular. He did not say how his brief was irregular. Rather than defend the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed a joint brief attacking the judgment. In their conclusion they pray this Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and in its place restore the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the claims of the 1st Respondent. Their role is fundamentally wrong. Their prayer ought to be for this Court to dismiss the Appeal. Since the 2nd and 3rd Respondents abandoned their role as Respondents’, their joint brief would not be considered. It is hereby struck out.
— O. Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Bakari v. Ogundipe (2020) – SC.514/2015
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry