Appellate jurisdiction

• Pages: 280-285

280

J.C.A., in Ikoku v. Ekeukwu Suit No. S.C.211/1989; (1995) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 410)

637 at 654.

(25) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

481. Appellate Court’s attitude to trial Courts exercise of interpretative

jurisdiction.

“Accordingly, where a trial Judge, in the exercise of his interpretative jurisdiction,

takes into consideration extraneous idea or notion of what he thinks will be expedient

and just in the circumstances of the case, an appellate Court is bound to interfere.

Similarly, where a trial Judge comes to a conclusion on the meaning of a document

without construing the operative words, an appellate Court is bound to perform such

a function. And in the context of this Court section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act will

be most handy and useful.” - Per Tobi, J.C.A., in A-G, Enugu State v. Avop Plc.

Suit No. CA/E/125/93; (1995) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 399) 90 at 116.

482. Appellate jurisdiction of Court of Appeal.

“It is trite law that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an appeal is statutory.” –

Per Okeize, J.C.A., in Masoyi v. Tula Suit No. CA/J/6/90; (1994) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

324) 116 at 121.

483. Appellate jurisdiction practice.

“I am however tempted to ask this: Whoever, appeals from a judgment on any grounds,

whether of law or not, which he believes to be less than substantial or frivolous? My

answer is: none. Appellate jurisdiction practice is a serious business. It is not a mere

hobby, horse. And those who engage in it fight wishing to win not just hitting the air.”

- Per Nsofor, J.C.A., in M.O. Kanu Sons & Co. v. F.B.N. Plc. Suit No. CA/PH/

73M/98; (1998) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 572) 116 at 128.

484. Can an appellant’s action be incompetent for want of jurisdiction?

“What I have to determine now is whether the appellant whose action had already

been filed pending in the High Court before Sections 1 and 2 of the Edict came into

force was obliged to comply with the condition precedent prescribed by section 2 of

the Edict of having to pay the sum of N25,000.00 deposit for security before continuing

to prosecute his action. The answer of course is in the negative. His action having

been filed on 14-10-1991 before the law came into force on 23-12-1991, the action is

quite competent and the lower Court has full powers and jurisdiction to hear the

action. The argument of the respondents that the appellant could have applied for

extension of time at the lower Court to be allowed to pay the required deposit before

continuing with the case is not tenable. This is because the language of Section 2 of

the Edict is quite clear that the deposit must be paid at the time of filing the action.

No provision is made for paying the deposit after filing the action, nor provision for

extension of time to do so. I cannot therefore read into the Edict provisions which

Paras. 480-484