LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Grounds of Appeal — Competence — Grounds Attacking Decision of High Court Directly — Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Under section 219 of the 1979 Constitution, only the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the High Court. The Supreme Court is not competent to hear appeals straight from the High Court. A ground of appeal complaining directly against the decision of the High Court is not proper.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Ogoyi v. Umagba (1995) NLC-1401991(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras. E–A.
"By section 219 of the 1979 Constitution, only the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, the High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State and Customary Court of Appeal of a State. This court is therefore not competent to hear appeals straight from the High Court, Sharia Court of Appeal or Customary Court of Appeal. A ground of appeal complaining directly against the decision of the High Court is not proper. See Adio & Or. v. The State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.24) 581 and Harriman v. Harriman (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 244."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court cannot entertain direct appeals from the High Court. Appeals must first go to the Court of Appeal. The principle is constitutional. Grounds attacking the High Court directly are incompetent. The rule ensures proper appellate hierarchy. The court will strike out such grounds. The appellant must refile properly.