LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Want of Prosecution – Inherent Powers of Court of Appeal to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Apart from the provisions made in the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules 1984, the Court of Appeal has inherent powers to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution where a party has failed to comply with certain procedural rules, such as filing of brief of argument.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Apart from the provisions made in the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules 1984, the Court of Appeal has inherent powers to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution where a party has failed to comply with certain procedural rules, such as filing of brief of argument."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts possess inherent powers beyond express rules to manage their processes and prevent abuse. The Court of Appeal can dismiss appeals for want of prosecution when appellants: fail to file briefs of argument, fail to prosecute appeals diligently, or demonstrate lack of intention to proceed. This inherent power exists independently of specific rules, though rules may also provide for such dismissal. “Want of prosecution” means: failure to take necessary steps to advance the appeal, inordinate delay without justification, or conduct suggesting abandonment. The power serves: preventing appeals from languishing indefinitely, protecting respondents from prolonged uncertainty, and ensuring efficient court administration. However, dismissal for want of prosecution should follow: notice to appellant of deficiency, opportunity to cure the default (where appropriate), and assessment of prejudice. This inherent power complements express rules, filling gaps where rules don’t specifically provide for sanctions. It reflects courts’ general authority to control their proceedings and prevent process abuse.