It also has to be observed that an appeal is usually against a ratio not normally against an obiter except in cases where the obiter is so closely linked with the ratio as to be deemed to have radically influenced the latter. But even there, the appeal is still against the ratio.
— Oputa, JSC. Saude v. Abdullahi (1989) – SC.197/1987
SHARE ON
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)
In law, a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination was distilled is deemed abandoned and liable to be struck out without much ado. Consequently, Ground 7 in the Notice of Appeal are hereby stuck out.
— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. General Telephone v. Asset (2017) – CA/L/336/2015
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)
There was, with the greatest respect, no earthly reason for the Court of Appeal to review the pleadings and the evidence in view of the findings of fact of the trial Court at p.160 that EXS.D and E were not loan receipts but receipts for the sale of land and the conclusion of law at p.161 “that all the plaintiff got by virtue of the receipts Exhibits D and E was an equitable interest”. There was no cross-appeal by the 2nd Defendant challenging the above findings. What the Court below should have then concentrated on would have been the legal effect of the above findings on the relationship of the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant.
— Oputa, JSC. Osagie v. Oyeyinka & Anor. (1987) – SC.194/1985
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
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
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry