The law is well settled that in practice, there should be no proliferation of issues. Therefore out of three grounds of appeal, an appellant cannot formulate or frame four issues. In other words, a party cannot frame more issues than the number of grounds of appeal.
– Adumein JCA. Adewoyin v. Executive Governor (2011)
SHARE ON
The primary purpose of the requirement that counsel should indicate from which of the grounds of an appeal issues raised in their brief of argument are derived, is to narrow and specifically identify the grounds from which such issues were distilled so as to readily show if they are valid and competent issues derived from competent grounds of the appeal. With the clear and express indication of the grounds of the appeal from which the two (2) issues raised in the Appellant’s brief, are distilled, the issues cannot reasonably be said to have been formulated from the other grounds not indicated in the issues. Beyond argument, the law still remains that grounds of appeal from which no issue was distilled or formulated (or indicated to have been distilled) are deemed abandoned.
– Garba, JCA. Dunlop v. Gaslink (2018)
My Lords, I have for the sake of doing substantial justice to the parties taken time to read over and over again the above ground 6 and the more I read it the more meaningless it comes across to me. Both the grounds and the particulars taken together reveal no complaint against the judgment of the Court below when not a single rule or regulation not identified and evaluated by the Court below in its judgment was disclosed in the ground and its particulars. I therefore cannot but agree with the apt and unassailable submissions of the learned counsel for the 1st -4th Respondent that ground 6 defies all understanding and is thus vague and incompetent and I so hold. This objection is hereby upheld and consequently ground 6 is hereby struck out for being incompetent.
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)
It is true that once no leave was shown to have been obtained by the Appellant before filing the grounds of appeal alleging error of facts based on evidence the said grounds together with the issues distilled therefrom and the arguments proffered thereon are liable to be struck out. See Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 718; Ogbechie v. Onochie (1986) 2 NWLR (pt. 23) 484; Ifediorah v. Ume (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 74) 5.
— M.U. Peter-Odili, JSC. Ugo v. Ugo (2007) – CA/A/110/2007
For issues for determination formulated by the respondent to be valid, they must be distilled from the grounds of appeal. In the instant case, as the respondents’ re-formulated issues are not shown to be tied to any of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant they are discountenanced. [Ondo State University v. Folayan (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.354) 1; Federal College of Education v. Anyanwu (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt.501) 533 at 560 referred to].
— Adeyemo v. Ida & Ors. (1998) – CA/1/6/92
It is inappropriate to distill more than one issue from one ground of appeal. – Nwodo, JCA. OLAM v. Intercontinental Bank (2009)
In Waziri v Geidam (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt.1523) 230 at 256, I had in this Court stated that:- “The functions which particulars to a ground of appeal are required to perform are to highlight the grouse of the appellants against the judgement on appeal. They are specifications of errors and misdirection which show the complaint the appellants are screaming about and the line of thought the appellants are going to canvass in their brief of argument. What is fundamental is that the ground of appeal are really explanatory notes on what is in contest and the particulars which open and exposed so that there is no attempt at an ambush or giving of room to which the respondent would say he was left in the dark of what he was to defend on appeal or that they are unable to understand or appreciate the complaint in the said ground.”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry