LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Grounds of Appeal – What Constitutes a Decision Appealable as of Right
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A mere passing remark by a Court of Appeal judge does not constitute a "decision" appealable as of right under constitutional provisions.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Reading the excerpt above, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that what was stated therein was a mere passing remark by Ndoma-Egba, JCA. It did not amount to a decision within section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
“Decision” for constitutional appeal purposes means a formal determination resolving issues before the court, not obiter dicta or passing comments. Appealable decisions: determine rights, resolve substantive or procedural issues, or form the basis of the judgment. Passing remarks, even by appellate judges, don’t constitute decisions triggering appeal rights. This distinction prevents appeals of every judicial comment and limits appeals to matters actually decided. Courts examine whether the statement: was necessary to the decision, resolved an issue in dispute, or was merely illustrative or explanatory. Only formal determinations affecting parties’ rights or case outcomes constitute appealable decisions. This principle ensures appellate resources focus on actual decisions, not judicial commentary