PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The appeal to the court below was only competent to the extent that the two issues raised were a challenge to the finding of the trial court that it had no jurisdiction. If the finding on jurisdiction remained unimpugned, the court below could not consider any other issue.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Oguntade, JSC, in Aribisala & Anor v. Ogunyemi & Ors (2005) NLC-2732000(SC) at pp. 8–9; Paras E–A.
"The appeal of the appellant to the court below was only competent to the extent that the two issues raised were a challenge to the finding of the trial court that it had no jurisdiction. Were it not so, the court below would not have been able to consider the appeal at all upon any other issue if the finding on jurisdiction remained unimpugned."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

An appeal challenging a finding of no jurisdiction is competent only on that issue. If the jurisdictional finding stands unimpugned, other issues cannot be considered. The principle applies to appellate practice. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE