Instant SSL
Appeals

Appeals (2099)

HELD:

"In determining the appeal, this Court painstakingly reiterated the trite principles that in simple language, it may be said that once the Court below transmits the Record of Appeal to the Court that would hear the appeal and the said appellate Court in fact receives the same, the appeal is said to be duly entered.

HELD:

"It is equally trite, that once the record of appeal is transmitted thereby signifying the entering of the appeal in the apex Court, the Court below automatically becomes functus officio, thus devoid of the fundamental jurisdictional competence to hear and determine any application or question pertaining to the appeal in-question.

HELD:

"I would want to conclude by bringing up the fact that the issue raised by the appellant in this appeal is outside the lone ground of appeal and even on that, the appeal should fail.

HELD:

"On the second reason why this appeal should fail; a careful examination of the Appellant's arguments and contention in its Brief will show that the Appellant is actually seeking this Court to interfere with the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeal (i.e: that the offence of forgery was committed in 1999) without such ground of appeal.

HELD:

"It is now settled law that where a ground of appeal is not covered by the issues for determination set out in the Appellant's Brief of argument, that ground of appeal must be deemed to have been abandoned and should be struck out.

HELD:

"I will not go into the detailed argument as that is not the purpose of a Reply Brief as envisaged by Order 9 Rule 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which provides:

Calender

« June 2024 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Go to top