LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction — Finding on Residence Not Appealed Binding on Parties
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The trial court found as a fact that the contract was to be performed at Calabar outside the jurisdiction and that the defendant does not reside within the jurisdiction. There was no appeal against that decision. The issue of the residency of the respondent has been determined by the trial court. Since there was no appeal on such a finding, the appellant cannot raise the issue of residence at this court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd v. University of Calabar (2004) NLC-1272000(SC) at p. 14; Paras D–E.
"The trial court had in any event found as a fact that:— 'There is no doubt that the contract was to be performed at Calabar outside the jurisdiction of this court and there is no doubt also that the defendant does not "reside" within the jurisdiction.' There was no appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision. In my view, the issue of the residency of the respondent in Lagos has been determined by the trial court. Since there was no appeal on such a finding, the appellant cannot raise the issue of residence at this court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A finding of fact not appealed against becomes binding on the parties. The appellant cannot later raise that issue at the Supreme Court. The principle applies to appellate practice. The rule prevents relitigation of unchallenged findings. A party who fails to appeal a finding is deemed to accept it. The court will not allow an issue to be raised for the first time at a higher level when it could have been challenged below.