Filing appeal improperly

• Pages: 634-635

634

intention to vary or and affirm the judgement of the Court of Appeal on the other

grounds clearly set out, this Court will not accept such invitation. Parties have the

constitutional right to bring to the notice of the Supreme Court, their complaints but

only in accordance with the laws and rules governing the practice and procedure in

the Supreme Court.” Therefore, the respondent in this case, cannot be seen to

complain against the findings of fact and legal conclusions reached by the learned

trial Judge without lodging its complaint by way of an appeal in conformity with the

provisions of the Constitution and/or the rules of this Court relating thereto.” - Per

Akpata, J.C.A., in Nig. General Superintendence v. N.P.A. (1989) 3 N.S.C. 519 at

524-525.

(72) FAILURE TO FILE LIST OF AUTHORITIES

1170. Effect of failure by an appellant to file list of authorities within 3 days

of hearing of appeal.

“On the first ground learned counsel on page 6 of the respondent’s brief cited Order

6 rule 3(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules in support. Learned counsel to the appellant

in his reply at page 1 of the appellants’ reply brief submitted on this point that this

objection is misconceived as the appellants are required to file their list of authorities

within 3 days of the hearing of the appeal. Failure to do this, counsel argued, the

appellants will not be permitted to cite such legal authorities. I have considered the

argument of both counsel to the parties vis-¹-vis the records and the prevailing law.

In my view, it is trite law that failure to file the list of authorities within 3 days of

hearing of the appeal will deprive the appellants the opportunity of citing such legal

authorities and no more.” - Per Okunola, J.C.A., in Oyetayo v. Mosojo Suit No.

CA/I/243/91; (1997) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 526) 627 at 634.

(73) FILING APPEAL IMPROPERLY

1171. Failure to file appeal properly.

“In the circumstances, it is quite plain that as an appeal can only be initiated by the

filing of appropriate notice of appeal as prescribed under Order VII rule 2 of the

Rules of this Court, and, since in the present appeal, there has been filed in the Court

below by the appellants no proper notice of appeal in terms of Order VII rule 2, we

hold, to continue the architectural metaphor already employed elsewhere by us in

this ruling, that this appeal like a wooden structure has not got off the ground at all.

It has defined all attempts to have it erected. There is therefore no peg upon which

to hand Order IX rule 28 because before consideration can be given to the application

of that rule, there must be an appeal properly so-called pending before the Court. At

present there is no appeal properly before this Court. The defects as to notice of

appeal are so fundamentally incurable that the only reasonable conclusion that can

be, and which we have reached in the circumstances is that this appeal is incompetent.

Paras. 1169-1171