Background
This case concerns the appeal filed by Dr. Femi Adekanye and twenty-five others against the Comptroller of Prisons and two others, regarding an application for stay of execution stemming from a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal.
Issues
The main legal issues for determination included:
- Whether the Court of Appeal could retain jurisdiction after an appeal had been lodged in the Supreme Court.
- How unchallenged affidavit evidence is treated.
- The validity of the affidavit used in the application for relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that:
- A court ceases to have jurisdiction over a matter once an appeal has been entered in a higher court.
- Unchallenged evidence in an affidavit is accepted as truth, whereas challenges require a rebuttal to be effective.
- A failure to fully comply with the statutory declaration required under the Oaths Act does not necessarily invalidate an affidavit, so long as there is substantial compliance.
Court Findings
The Court of Appeal unanimously ruled to strike out the application. Key findings included:
- The jurisdictional challenge raised by the respondents was valid, as the record of appeal was sent to the Supreme Court, thus depriving the Court of Appeal jurisdiction.
- The affidavits submitted were valid despite not following the prescribed language as per the Oaths Act, as they satisfied the requirement for substantial compliance.
- The Court reaffirmed that jurisdictional issues must be resolved at the outset, thus establishing the principle that a court without jurisdiction cannot act.
Conclusion
In light of these findings, the Court of Appeal concluded that it lacked the authority to entertain the application, which should have been directed to the Supreme Court.
Significance
This ruling underscores the importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings and clarifies procedural norms regarding unchallenged affidavit evidence, essential for legal practitioners navigating complex court hierarchies in Nigeria.