STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

A VAGUE GROUND OF APPEAL IS INCOMPETENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I have taken a calm look at ground 6 and considered the submissions of counsel to the respective parties and it does appear to me that though the law is that a ground of appeal should not be considered in isolation of its particulars in order to understand its purports, yet it is also the law that a ground of appeal which defies understanding or is not particularized or indeed contains irrelevant particulars is simply a vague ground of appeal and thus incompetent. See CBN and Anor v. Okojie and Ors (2002) LPELR- 836 (SC).

— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

grounds of appeal

GROUNDS OF APPEAL MUST ARISE FROM THE JUDGEMENT

In Bello v Aruwa (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.615) 454 it was held that grounds of appeal are not formulated in abstract. They must arise from the judgment in the same way as the issues arise from the grounds of appeal. And however meritorious a ground of appeal may be, it must be connected with the controversy between the parties at the trial court.

In Abiola v Abacha (1997) 6 NWLR (pt.509) 413 it was held that the grounds of appeal must stem from the decision of the court below.

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUE MUST BE GOTTEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

An issue is derived from a ground where the subject matter of the issue is the same as the subject matter of the complain in the ground. As this court has established in a long line of cases overtime, any issue raised for determination in an appeal that is not based on or covered by any ground of the appeal is not valid for consideration and must be struck out.

– Agim JSC. Pillars v. William (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

NO NEED TO APPEAL SPECIFIC FINDINGS WHEN WHOLE DECISION HAS BEEN APPEALED

It has been argued by the respondent’s counsel that the appellant did not appeal against this finding and some other findings made by the learned trial Judge, I must say that she was not given a fair hearing and has appealed against the whole judgment and does not need to appeal against everything said or every observation made by the learned trial Judge.

— Opene JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

ALLEGING MISDIRECTION OF LAW

It is trite law that where a party alleged misdirection of law, he must show particulars of the misdirection related to a specific finding or observation or reasoning in the judgment of the trial Court. The particulars of the alleged misdirection must necessarily be stated because not every misdirection will be fatal to the decision of the trial Court or lead to setting same aside on appeal. See M/V CAROLINE MAERSK and ORS. v. NOKOY INV. LTD (2002) LPELR- 3182 (SC) and OKOTIE-EBOH v. MANAGER and ORS. (2004) LPELR.

— B.B. Aliyu, JCA. Oboh v. Oboh (2021) – CA/B/372/12

Was this dictum helpful?

USING BOTH SIMILAR GROUNDS FROM ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL AND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

Equity follows the law and does always look at the substance and not the form. The 3rd Respondent on this point of his preliminary objection appears to be blighted by the form, and not the substance. Upon my careful perusal of grounds 1, 2, 3 & 6 of the Amended Notice of Appeal they appear to be substantially the replication of grounds 1, 2 & 3 of the original notice of appeal, grounds 4 in the original notice of appeal and the amended notice of appeal and the amended notice of appeal are identical. Similarly, ground 5 in the original notice of appeal was replicated, in ground 5 of the amended notice of appeal. The two grounds are identical. I do not, therefore, think that the respondents in the appeal have been misled, embarrassed or in any way prejudged by the Appellants merely indicating that their issue 1 has been formulated from original grounds 1, 2 & 3 as well as grounds 1, 2, 3 & 6 in the Amended Notice of Appeal. The Respondents similarly are not misled and prejudiced by the Appellants indicating that issues 2 & 3 are issues the subject of identical grounds 4 & 5 in both the original notice of appeal and the Amended Notice of Appeal respectively. Therefore, using blue pencil rule to discountenance, references, in the Appellants’ issues for determination of the appeal in their brief, to grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 in the original notice of appeal filed on 9th August, 2016 will, in the peculiar facts of this case, meet the ends of substantial justice. Courts these days strive to doing substantial justice as they now turn away from arcane technicality.

— Ejembi Eko, JSC. Oboh & Anor v. NFL (SC.841/2016, January 28, 2022)

Was this dictum helpful?

OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT A GROUND OF LAW

Kenuj Inv. Ltd. v. D.H. & S.S. Ltd. (2026) 10 NWLR (Pt. 2049) 1 at 28, C—F: ‘It is trite that an omnibus ground of appeal alleging that the judgment of a trial court is against the weight of evidence is, by its very nature, not a ground of law. Failure to seek and obtain leave in respect thereof renders such a ground incompetent. In Mainasara v. F.B.N. (2021) LPELR – 56612 (SC), (2022) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1827) 465, this court held that: “It is trite that the omnibus ground of appeal which alleges that a decision of a trial court is against the weight of evidence is, by its inherent nature, not aground of law and failure to seek leave renders such ground incompetent. See Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4NWLR (Pt. 67) 718 at 743, para. H and 744, para. A; Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1211) 243 at267, para. H.” In the circumstance, only ground 13 of the notice of appeal filed on the 8th day of August, 2018 is incompetent and liable to be struck out. All the other grounds, being grounds of law, are competent and sufficient to sustain the appeal. The said grounds therefore constitute a valid foundation upon which the amended notice of appeal filed on the 28th day of February, 2020 and deemed on the 6th day of July, 2021 rests.’

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.