However, issue four which was partly distilled from grounds 6 and also from ground 7 and 8 should in my view be saved by the competent grounds 7 and 8 and is thus not liable to be struck out along with the incompetent ground 6. See Order 7 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016. See also 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)
SHARE ON
It is trite that a Respondent may not formulate issues outside the grounds of appeal contained in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, in this case contained in Pages 337 – 346 of the printed records of Appeal. Issues for determination must be based on and correlate with the grounds of appeal and should be an answer to the grounds of appeal. An issue may encompass one or more grounds of appeal, it is incompetent where the issues are not based on the grounds of appeal, they are irrelevant. Issues for determination in an appeal is akin to pleadings in the lower Court, hence adherence to the strict observance of the rules on formulating issues for determination. If all the above constituent elements or requirements of the doctrine are not fully established, the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam can not be sustained.
– Nwaoma Uwa, JCA. NOGA v. NICON (2007)
In CHUKWUEMEKA N. OJIOGU V. LEONARD OJIOGU & ANOR (2010) LPELR – 2377 (SC), this Court per Chukwuma-Eneh JSC (of blessed memory) restated the principle inter-alia as follows:- “It is trite that an appellate Court will not allow a fresh issue on appeal to be taken without leave as it has not been pronounced upon by the Courts below. This is even more so as in this case where the appellant is trying on appeal to raise an issue which has not been raised, nor considered by the trial Court. However, where the question involves substantial point of law, substantive or procedural and it is plain that no further evidence may be called, the Court may allow the issue to be raised subject to leave having been sought and obtained.”
It is obvious that the respondent has not appealed against the failure of the court below to consider other issues raised before it. The inference that can rightly be made from that position is that they took a chance that the judgment of the court below would be affirmed by this court. Having regard to what I have said above on the only issue considered by the court below, it is manifest that the risk taken by the respondent has not enured in its favour. On the other hand, as already observed, the trial court had found for the plaintiff/appellant in respect of all his claims against the respondent. As those findings remained undisturbed, it would not in my humble view, be right in the circumstances to now deny the appellant of the fruits of his success by remitting the case to the court below for the consideration of the issues that the court deliberately left unconsidered in its judgment. The justice of the case demands that the appellant should be granted all his claims as found by the trial court. And it is hereby granted accordingly.
— Ejiwunmi JSC. Melwani V. Five Star Industries Limited (SC.15/1994, 25 January 2002)
Let me take the first issue, which looks to me a double – barrelled one. I say this because it involves both adjectival law as well as substantive law.
— Tobi, JCA. Abraham v Olorunfunmi (1990) – CA/L/83/89
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 general rule, on fresh point or issue in this Court, is that it will not be entertained if this Court had not the benefit of the views of the Justices of the Court below: see FADIORA v. GBADEBO (1998) 3 SC 219; ENANG v. ADU (1981) 11 – 12 SC 25; ADEGOKE MOTORS v. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.109) 250, etc.
– Ejembi, JSC. GTB v. Innoson (2017) – SC.694/2014(R)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry