PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The exercise of appellate jurisdiction is statutory; a court cannot exercise jurisdiction to hear an appeal unless conferred by the Constitution or statute; there is no power to relist appeals dismissed under Order 6 rule 10 for failure to file briefs, as no such provision exists in the Court rules.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C., in Olowu & Ors v. Abolore & Anor (1993) NLC-3021990(SC) at pp. 22; Paras A–C.
"It is well settled that the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is statutory. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction to hear an appeal unless such jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or some enabling statute. Hence in the instant case the jurisdiction to relist an appeal dismissed under Order 6 rule 10 should be found in the Rules of the Court. I have not been lucky to discover any in the rules."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

This principle reinforces the positivist doctrine that appellate powers must have explicit legal foundation. Unlike inherent jurisdiction of trial courts, appellate jurisdiction is entirely creature of statute and must be exercised strictly within statutory bounds. Order 6 rule 10 dismissals for failure to file appellate briefs are treated as final determinations without built-in restoration mechanisms. This differs from other procedural dismissals (e.g., for non-appearance) where rules explicitly provide for restoration applications. The absence of a restoration provision in Order 6 rule 10 is interpreted as legislative intent that such dismissals be final. The principle encourages diligent prosecution of appeals, prevents abuse through repeated non-compliance followed by restoration applications, and maintains the integrity of procedural rules by enforcing consequences for non-compliance.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE