LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION – High Court – Post-Appeal Remedies – Proceedings to Protect Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Having appealed to the Court of Appeal, all matters relating to that appeal must be agitated at that Court. Therefore, the motions which have now led to this appeal should have been filed and heard in the Court of Appeal. The High Court no longer has the jurisdiction to hear those motions. The proper forum for the type of motions filed in the High Court was not the High Court but the Court of Appeal whose jurisdiction it was to exercise disciplinary powers to protect proceedings before them from frustration.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in International Bank for West Africa Ltd. & Anor v. Pavex International Company (Nigeria) Ltd. (2000) NLC-781994(SC) at p. 20; Paras D–E, and p. 40; Paras D–E.
"Having appealed to the Court of Appeal, all matters relating to that appeal must be agitated at that Court. Therefore, the motions which have now led to this appeal should have been filed and heard in the Court of Appeal. The High Court no longer has the jurisdiction to hear those motions. The proper forum for the type of motions filed in the High Court was not the High Court but the Court of Appeal whose jurisdiction it was to exercise disciplinary powers to protect proceedings before them from frustration."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Once an appeal is filed, the appellate court assumes jurisdiction over matters relating to that appeal. The lower court loses jurisdiction to entertain motions that would affect or interfere with the appellate process. This includes motions seeking to protect the appellate court’s proceedings from frustration or to undo actions that would render the appeal nugatory. Such motions must be filed in the appellate court, not the trial court. This ensures that the appellate court can effectively exercise its supervisory and disciplinary powers over matters pending before it.