LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Court of Appeal — Powers under Section 16 — Limits on Exercise of Full Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The power of the Court of Appeal to assume full jurisdiction under Section 16 does not include what the trial court could not have done; the appellate court cannot exercise jurisdiction that the trial court lacked.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in A.G., Anambra State & Ors v. Okeke & Ors (2002) NLC-1021997(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras E–B.
"One incontestable limit to the power of the Court of Appeal to assume full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings is that such first instance jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 16 does not include what the trial court could not have done. Enough, I believe, has been said to show that the court below should not have proceeded to determine the application on the merits and thereby deny the defendants of the options available to them of mounting a defence to the application on the merits."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act allows the Court of Appeal to assume full jurisdiction over proceedings. However, this power is limited to what the trial court could have done. The appellate court cannot exercise jurisdiction that the trial court lacked. The principle prevents the appellate court from exceeding the original court’s powers. The Court of Appeal cannot cure jurisdictional defects by invoking Section 16. The rule ensures that appellate powers are derivative. The Court of Appeal cannot hear matters that the trial court could not have heard. The principle applies to both substantive and procedural jurisdiction. The appellate court must respect the limits of the trial court’s competence.