CORAM

---

AJEGBO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT(Lead Judgment)

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT(Lead Judgment)

---

PARTIES

---

1. ODOEMENA NWAIGWE

2. UKWUOMAIKE

3. SABASTINE NWAMADI(For themselves and as representing Umujuju Family of Umuogba Eziama Okpala.

APPELLANTS 

---

 NZE EDWIN OKERE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant appealed against the decision of the Customary Court on the omnibus ground of appeal to the Customary Court of appeal.

---

HELD

---

The court held that the Customary Court of appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether having regards to section 247 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 which invests appellate jurisdiction on the Customary Court of Appeal of a State only in respect of question of customary law, the Customary Court of Appeal of Imo State had jurisdiction to entertain the defendants/appellants appeal  thereat when their notice and ground of appeal in the Customary Court of Appeal did not raise any question of customary law but merely stated “that the decision of the court is altogether unwarranted, unreasonable and cannot be supported having regards to the evidence on record – an omnibus ground of appeal adopted only to criminal appeal and forbidden in civil appeals.Whether the Customary Court of Appeal of Imo State was right to ex proprio motu amend the respondents (sic) notice and ground of appeal which contains a sole omnibus ground of appeal that reads “that the decision of the court is altogether unwarranted, unreasonable and cannot be supported having regards to the evidence” which sole ground in the notice of appeal being incompetent also rendered the appeal itself incompetent.Where “the Customary Court of Appeal of a State erroneously assumed jurisdiction to entertain a matter that raised questions other than of customary law” would an aggrieved party not be acting within the provisions of section 224(1) to bring an appeal to the Court of Appeal on that ground?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS NOT INHERENT; IT IS STATUTORILY CONFERRED ON A COURT OR TRIBUNAL

---

Appellate jurisdiction is always statutorily conferred on a court or tribunal either by the Constitution of the Nation or a Statute of the National Assembly or House of Assembly of a State- Onnoghen J.S.C.

---

CONDITION FOR THE INVOCATION OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL AND COURT OF APPEAL UNDER SECTIONS 247(1) AND 224(1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION

---

Whereas sections 247(1) conferred appellate jurisdiction on the Customary Court of Appeal of a State to hear appeals from the Customary Court of a state in respect of civil proceedings involving questions of Customary Law, section 224(1) of the same Constitution on the other hand confers appellate jurisdiction on the Federal Court of Appeal, now Court of Appeal, to hear and determine appeals from the decisions of the Customary Court of Appeal of a State with respect to any question of Customary Law and such other matters that may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. It is therefore very clear that before the appellate jurisdiction of either court can be properly invoked by an aggrieved party to any civil proceeding the question (s) for determination by the appellate court must relate to Customary Law in contra distinction to English or Common Law or any other system of law other than Customary Law of the state concerned. It follows therefore that any appeal by any party to either of the said appellate courts, the grounds of which or question for determination of which is not based on Customary Law, is incompetent ab initio- Onnoghen J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Golok v. Divalpwah (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 4132. Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 at 595

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

The 1979 Constitution

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT