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!

PARTIES IN NOTICE OF APPEAL SHOULD BE SAME IN AN APPLICATION SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT ON SAME SUIT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The Notice of Appeal which is the foundation of this application has four parties as respondents, whereas the application has only three parties, exclusive of the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court who is the 4th respondent in the Notice of Appeal. The Chief Registrar shouldn’t have been excluded/omitted from the application before us, as, if the appeal is supposed to involve the Chief Registrar, then the Chief Registrar is supposed to be involved in the application. The parties in both processes should be the same, and none should be excluded unless it has been formerly withdrawn. In this respect I endorse the submission of Chief Olanipekun. SAN on the issue of the parties, and I agree that the applicant cannot change the parties in the notice of appeal in this application.

— A.M. Muktar, JSC. Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. AKS Steel Nigeria Ltd. (2011) – SC. 101/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

notice of appeal, parties

IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO INCLUDE CO–ACCUSED NAME IN NOTICE OF APPEAL

In F.R.N. v. Lamido (2026) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2057) 215 at 243, A—C per Umar JSC: ‘In criminal appeals, it is generally not mandatory for an appellant to include the names of co-accused at the trial court in his notice of appeal, if those co-accused are not affected by the appeal. The fundamental principle guiding criminal appeals is that an appeal is a challenge by an aggrieved party (the appellant) against a decision of a lower court that directly affects him. The notice of appeal serves to formally notify the appellate court and the respondent, typically the State or as in this case at the lower court, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, of the appellant’s intention to appeal and the specific grounds upon which the appeal is based, pertaining to his own conviction or sentence.’

Was this dictum helpful?

FILING OF TWO NOTICES OF APPEAL IS NOT INCOMPETENT

The phrase “…after the notice of appeal” does not envisage multiple notices of appeal. There are similar provisions in the High Court and Court of Appeal Rules. In any case, it is an affront to logic and common sense to argue that an appellant can file more than one notice of appeal without indicating on which one he relies. Be that as it may, the mere fact of filing multiple notices of appeal does not render the appeal incompetent, Akuneziri v. Okenwa (2000) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 25, First Bank of Nigeria Plc. v. T.S.A. Industries Ltd. (2010) 4-7 SC (Pt. 1) 242. The 1st respondent read the appellants’ brief and made a decision to rely on one of the two notices filed within time. Not only was the 1st respondent not misled by the two notices of appeal, he did not disclose any injury he suffered for which he could seek redress. He cannot be heard to argue that another respondent elected to rely on the other notice of appeal.

— N.S. Ngwuta JSC. Yaki (Rtd) & Anor. V. Senator Bagudu & Ors. (SC.722/2015, 13 Nov 2015)

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTY CANNOT BE GRANTED WHAT HE DID NOT CLAIM

In this regard, the law is long and well settled that where a plaintiff claims, say, a declaration of title to land or whatever, and his claim is dismissed, it will be wrong to grant the declaration to the defendant if he did not ask for it by way of counter-claim. See: Ntiaro v. Akpam 3 N.L.R. 10; Abisi v. Ekwealor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 643 etc. As has been pointed out repeatedly by this and other courts, courts of law are no father Christmas and they must not grant to a party a relief which he has not sought or claimed or which is more than he has claimed. see: Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 S.C. 71 at 81-82.

– Iguh JSC. Awoniyi v. AMORC (2000)

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT CANNOT GIVE PARTY THAT WHICH HE DID NOT CLAIM

Badmus v. Abegunde (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 627) 493, Onu, J.S.C. observed: “It is trite law that the court is without power to award to a claimant that which he did not claim. This principle of law has time and again, been stated and re-stated by this court that it seems to me that there is no longer any need to cite authorities in support of it. We take the view that the proposition of the law is not only good law but good sense. A court of law may award less, and not more than what the parties have claimed. A fortiori, the court should never award that which was not claimed or pleaded by either party. It should always be borne in mind that a Court of Law is not a charitable institution, its duty in civil cases is to render unto every one according to his proven claim.”

Was this dictum helpful?

LEAVE FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL MAY ONLY BE GRANTED UPON APPLICATION BY A PARTY

The periods of time within which to give a notice of appeal against the decision of the Court below to this Court may be extended by the Court at the instance of a person/s who intend/s to appeal to the Court in both civil and criminal cases, in deserving cases. A valid and competent Notice of Appeal can be given or filed after the expiration or outside the periods of time stipulated under the provisions of Section 27 (2) of the Act, when and only if, the periods of the time was extended by the Court, as a condition precedent. Accordingly, the prior permission or leave of the Court, by way of extension of the relevant period of time within which to give the notice of appeal, is necessary and required for the validity and competence of a notice of such an appeal to the Court. Without the prior permission first sought and obtained by an Appellant for extension of time to appeal before giving or filing a Notice of Appeal in the Court, a purported Notice of Appeal given or filed after the expiration or outside the limited period of time, would be fatally and incurably, invalid and incompetent, thereby depriving the Court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over the appeal. See Amadi v. INEC (2012) LPELR – 7831 (SC), Awhinashi v. Oteri (1984) 5 SC, 38, Enweliku v. State (1970) 1 Ail NWLR, 57, Peba v. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC, 76.

— M.L. Garba JSC. Kingsley Okoro V. The State (SC.85/2013, 17 Feb 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

APPEAL CANNOT BE DECIDED WHERE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS COMPETENT

My lords, it is of utmost importance and I so bear it in my mind that it is only when a notice of appeal is competent that a determination of it on the merit will be feasible. In other words, where a notice of appeal is incompetent, it is liable to be terminated in limine and it would be of no moment no matter how meritorious it would have been if it were to be considered on the merit. In law, one of the most essential requirement or condition precedent for the competence of an appeal to be determined on the merit by the Court is a valid notice and grounds of appeal, in the absence of which such an appeal would be rendered incompetent and thus incapable of being determined on the merit by this Court for without jurisdiction there can be no competence of any cause or matter or appeal before the Court. It has long been settled in our law that jurisdiction is a fundamental one and thus can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal for the first time as in the instant appeal by either of the parties or even by the Court suo motu and once raised it must first be determined one way or the other by the Court before any other issue touching on the merit or otherwise of the respective cases of the parties can be enquired and be determined on the merit by the Court. This is so because in the absence of jurisdiction there can be no competence in the 1st Respondent’s claim to be heard and determined on the merit, since jurisdiction is the life blood of every cause or action and thus where the requisite jurisdiction is found to be lacking, that is indeed the end of the matter. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 581.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.