The essence of particulars to a ground of appeal is to explain or substantiate on the ground or grounds. Where the particulars are incorporated and embedded in the ground of appeal, as in this case, it does not make ground 2 incompetent. This method I would term as a “short cut” in drafting and formulating grounds of appeal by the learned counsel to the Appellant.
– Uwa, JCA. GTB v. Innoson (2014) – CA/I/258/2011
SHARE ON
It is usually difficult to out rightly determine whether a ground of a law is purely one of law alone or is of mixed law and fact. Where a counsel is confronted with such difficulty, the safest thing for him to do, is to apply for leave on the ground or grounds of mixed law and facts.
— P.A. Galinje JSC. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Anor. (SC.535/2013(R), 23 June 2017)
It is important to bear in mind the nature and scope of omnibus ground of appeal in civil cases. It must be stressed that when a complaint is against the weight of evidence, the complaint is of necessity against the totality of the evidence adduced before the court and not on a finding of fact on a specific issue or document as the case may be. In the latter case, the finding should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal. See Ndiwe v. Okocha (supra). It cannot be used to raise issues of or errors in law. The complaint questions the appraisal and evaluation of all the evidence adduced and not the weight to be attached to any particular piece of evidence.
– Ogwuegbu JSC. Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996)
It is trite law that one issue can contain many consistent grounds of appeal, but a single ground of appeal cannot give rise to two or more issues.
– Denton West JCA. Salaja v. Salaja (2013)
It should, however, be noted that, Appellant had distilled their Issue one from grounds 1, 2 and 5 of the Grounds of the Appeal, and thereafter, distilled the Issue 3 (which the Respondent attacked, mistaking it for Issue 4) from the same ground one of the appeal. Appellants cannot do that, as it would amount to proliferation of issues. Having earlier used the ground one, together with grounds 2 and 5, to distill the issue one, the said ground one was no longer available to donate another issue for the determination of the appeal. We have held repeatedly, that a ground of appeal cannot be split to generate issues for determination, and that, once an issue has been distilled from a given ground of appeal, the said ground of appeal is no longer available to give birth to another issue for determination, either alone or in conjunction with other grounds of appeal. Where a ground of appeal has been used to formulate an issue for determination, using it again to formulate another issue will corrupt that other issue for determination and render it incompetent.
– Mbaba JCA. Aduba v. Aduba (2018)
The settled law is that an issue formulated for determination must be distilled from a ground of appeal, and where it has no ground of appeal to relate to, then it has no part to play in the determination of the appeal, and so the appellate court has no option than to disregard the said issue. Issue (1) in the appellant’s brief of argument also becomes incompetent and it is discountenanced.
– Mukhtar JSC. Nwankwo v. Ecumenical (2007)
The law is trite that issues for determination must be distilled from the grounds of appeal, which must, in turn arise from the ratio decidendi of the decision appealed against. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition) states clearly that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle or rule of law upon which a court’s decision is founded. It is the reason for the decision or the reasoning, principle or ground upon which a case is decided. Put differently, the ratio decidendi of a decision can be clearly differentiated from the other parts of the decision referred to as obita dicta or obiter dictum, which simply means “something said in passing.” It is a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that does not embody the decision of the court. See Oleksander & Ors v. Lonestar Drilling Company Limited & Anor (2015) LPELR-24614 (SC), (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1464) 337; Daniel v. INEC (2015) LPELR – 24566 (SC); (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; Ajibola v. Ajadi (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 14.
— Okoro, JSC. Anyanwu v. PDP (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1710) 134
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry