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!

LEAVE MUST BE SOUGHT TO RAISE NEW ISSUE NOT CANVASSED AT THE LOWER COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Both parties right at the trial court through to the court below, only canvassed arguments on issue of boundary and not on the root of title from which the plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed land. Ground No. 3 is therefore a new issue as it was not dealt with by the courts below and by the parties or canvassed by the parties in the two courts. In its judgment, the lower court found that the only issue fought by the parties at the trial court was that of boundary or demarcation of the land between the parties . The third ground of appeal filed by the appellant which introduced the issue of root of title is therefore a new issue which could only be introduced by the appellants with leave of this court since it was never raised at the two lower courts. The preliminary objection therefore succeeds with regard to the third ground of appeal only.

— Sanusi JCA. Ikeleve Daagir Ityavkase Ikyereve V. Joseph Kwaghkar (CA/J/45/97, 15 November 2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

issue

WHAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE AT TRIAL CANNOT BE AN ISSUE ON APPEAL

The law is trite that a point that is not made an issue in the course of trial cannot be so raised in an appellate court unless with the leave of the trial court or the appellate court. See Oshatoba v. Olujitan 2000 5 NWLR part 655 page 159, Obioha v. Duru 1994 8 NWLR part 365 page 631, and Akpene v. Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd 1977 1 SC 47.

— A.M. Mukhtar JSC. Ohochukwu V. AG Rivers State & Ors. (SC.207/2004 • 17 February 2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

I may here repeat what I said in the case of Standard Consolidated Dredging & Construction Company Limited v. Katonecrest Nigeria Limited (1986) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.44) 791, at p.799 where I said: “The above manner of wording the issues for determination in both briefs raises two necessary questions, namely:- (i) what is the meaning of “issues arising for determination” in a Brief and (ii) what are its objects and purpose? As for the meaning of ‘Issue” I cannot do better than borrow the words of Buckley, L.J., in Howel v. Dering & Ors. (1915) 1 K.B. 54, at p.62 thus: “The word can be used in more than one sense. It may be said that every disputed question of fact is in issue. It is in a sense, that is to say, it is in dispute. But every question of fact which is “in issue” and which a jury has to decide is not necessarily “an issue” within the meaning of the rule”. Later he continued: “An issue is that which, if decided in favour of the plaintiff, will in itself give a right to relief, or would, but for some other consideration, in itself give a right to relief; and if decided in favour of the defendant will in itself be a defence.” So it is in an appellate brief, mutatis mutandis. It is not every fact in dispute or indeed every ground of appeal that raises an issue for determination. While sometimes one such fact or ground may raise an issue, more often than not it takes a combination of such facts or grounds to raise an issue. The acid test is whether the legal consequences of that ground or fact, or a combination of those grounds or facts as framed by the appellant, if decided in favour of the appellant, will result in a verdict in his favour. For as Lord Diplock put it in Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd. v. V/O Ex-portchleb (1966) 1 Q.B. 630, at p. 642: “But while an issue may thus involve a dispute about facts, a mere dispute about facts divorced from their legal consequences is not “an issue.”

— Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) – SC.207/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT IS TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES PLACED BEFORE IT

There is no doubt, that, generally, the court below ought to have considered all issues placed before it for determination not being the final court on the matter. But a litigant can only be heard to complain if the issue not so considered is material and substantial in the particular circumstance. See Onifade V. Olayiwola (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.161) 130 at 159 and if the appellant had suffered any miscarriage of justice. See; State V. Ajie (2000) FWLR (Pt.15) 2831 at 2842.

— O. Ariwoola, JSC. African Intl. Bank Ltd. v Integrated Dimensional System (2012) – SC.278/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

SUPERFLUOUS AND OVERLAPPING ISSUES ARE NOT NECESSARY

The issues formulated by the parties are needlessly overlapping and superfluous in several aspects. The Appellants formulated twelve (12) issues for determination when in actual fact the contention in this appeal appears straightforward. On their part, the Respondents formulated seven (7) issues with inelegant verbosity. This is not necessary in a Court as busy as the Supreme Court, perhaps any Court at all.

— S.D. Bage, JSC. Onyekwuluje v Animashaun (2019) – SC.72/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT NOT TO MAKE COMMENT ON ISSUE NOT RAISED

The question whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents were properly joined as “third parties” in the suit has not been raised as an issue in this appeal by any of the parties. I do not, therefore, propose to make any comment on the subject.

— Iguh, JSC. Kyari v Alkali (2001) – SC.224/1993

Was this dictum helpful?

AN APPEAL COURT CAN FORMULATE AN ISSUE – RELATEABLE TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL

From the furore of the complaints of the appellant which seem more academic than based on legal principles, it needs be restated that the Court of Appeal has a wide unfettered discretionary power to formulate its own issues in the interest of Justice, provided they relate to the grounds of appeal and flow therefrom. Stated in other words, an Appeal Court can formulate its own issues where in its opinion, the issues formulated by the parties would not justify or equitably dispose off the appeal before it. Further still, an Appeal Court can also with in the same manner, prefer or adopt the issue or issues formulated by any of the parties to an appeal where same would enable it do justice to the appeal.

– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Makanjuola v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.