a cross-appeal, by its nature, is a separate and independent appeal. It is not an appendage to the main appeal, and its purpose is to enable the respondent in the main appeal to appeal against the same judgment or part thereof that he (the respondent) is aggrieved with
Karaye v. Wike LGC(21/6/2019) D
...the respondent who has not cross-appealed against the very judgment on appeal cannot seek the reversal or variation of any findings of the Court below.
MUSA v. THE STATE LGC(11/01/2019) E
The purpose of a cross-appeal is to correct an error standing in the way of the Respondent in the main appeal. See ANZAKU V. GOV. NASARAWA STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (PT. 919) 448; BUHARI V. INEC (2008) LPELR-814 (SC); UDOM V. MICHELETTI & SONS LTD (1997) LPELR-3310 (SC); ADERIBIGBE & ANOR V. ABIDOYE (2009) LPELR-140 (SC); AWOSIKA V. STATE (2018) LPELR-44351 (SC); EZUKWU V. UKACHUKWU & ANOR (2004) LPELR-1217 (SC). PER ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
I must quickly say that our law does not recognize a situation where, in the absence of a cross-appeal or respondent’s notice, a Respondent will depart from its traditional role of defending the decision being appealed against by the Appellant. Certainly, as the Supreme Court had held in the case of CAMEROON AIRLINES Vs.
OTUTUIZU (2011) LPELR-827(SC), the role of the Respondent in an appeal is to defend the judgment of the trial Court, but where the Respondent is not comfortable with a finding (not the entire judgment) in the judgment which he considers fundamental, he can only do so by filing a cross-appeal.
As noted earlier, the 4th to 6th Respondents’ counsel had, while canvassing argument in connection with the issue as to whether the instant suit constitutes an abuse of Court process, urged this Court to resolve the said issue in favour of the Appellant and set aside the learned trial Judge’s decision that the present suit does not amount to an abuse of Court process. In the event that the 4th to 6th Respondents do not agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge, they ought to file a cross-appeal and not argue against the decision of the trial Judge in their Respondents’ brief of argument.
I need not say more on this point. Such a conduct borders on misconduct which made the position being argued by the said learned counsel as one involved in a subtle collusive suit in the circumstance. PER KOLAWOLE, J.CA.