NOT MORE THAN ONE ISSUE FROM A GROUND OF APPEAL

EVEN IF A GROUND OF APPEAL IS INELEGANT, IT WILL NOT BE STRUCK OUT

In short, the position, in my humble view, is that once it is possible to make sense out of a ground of appeal that complains both of error in law and misdirection in fact, the ground of appeal is valid, the defect in its form notwithstanding. The rationale behind this lies in the shift in emphasis from technical justice to substantial justice – from form to substance. In other words, though a ground of appeal that complains of an error in law and misdirection in fact may be inelegant in drafting and thereby defective in form, that defect alone is not sufficient to have it struck out provided the complaints therein are clear – see pages 265 – 266 of Aderounmu v. Olowu (supra) per Ayoola JSC.

— Onnoghen JSC. Aigbobahi & Ors. v. Aifuwa, Osabuohien & Ors. (SC. 194/2001, 3 Feb 2006)

PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE WHETHER A GROUND OF APPEAL IS INCOMPETENT

The principle to guide the court in deciding whether a ground of appeal is incompetent is as laid down in the case of Aderounmu v. Olowu (supra) at pages 265 – 266 which has been cited and relied upon by both counsel in this appeal. In that case, Ayoola JSC stated the law, inter alia , as follows: “… what is important in a ground of appeal and the test the court should apply is whether or not the impugned grounds show clearly what is complained of as error in law and what is complained of as misdirection or as the case may be, error of fact . The view, with which I am inclined to agree, is expressed in the Court of Appeal. See the case of Nteogwuija and Ors. v. Ikuru and Ors.  (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 569) 267 at 310, that the mere fact that a ground of appeal is framed as an error and misdirection does not make it incompetent. In my view, only general propositions can be made in a matter in which the question is not as to form. Ultimately, it is for the court before which the question is raised to decide whether viewed objectively, the ground satisfies the requirements of preciseness and clarity … what makes a ground incompetent is not whether it is framed as an error and a misdirection but whether by so stating it, the other side is left in doubt and without adequate information as to what the complaint of the appellants actually is.”

— Onnoghen JSC. Aigbobahi & Ors. v. Aifuwa, Osabuohien & Ors. (SC. 194/2001, 3 Feb 2006)

IT IS THE ISSUE FORMULATED THAT THE COURT CONSIDERS, NOT GROUNDS OF APPEAL

It has to be noted that what an appellate court considers in its decision are the issues formulated for determination not the ground or grounds of appeal or every question that arises from the ground(s) of appeal, see Ibori v. Agbi (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 202) 1799, (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 78. — Onnoghen JSC. Aigbobahi & Ors. v. Aifuwa, Osabuohien & Ors. (SC. 194/2001, 3 Feb 2006)

A COMPETENT APPEAL ARISES FROM A LOWER COURT’S DECISION

A competent appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal, the Court below, arises only from that Court’s decision. In the case at hand where an issue had not been heard and decided by the Court of Appeal, an appeal to this Court, by virtue of Section 233(2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, does not enure. See THOR V. FIRST CITY MERCHANT BANK LTD (2002) LPELR – 8061 (SC) and OYAKHIRE V. STATE (2006) LPELR-2863 (SC).

— M.D. Muhammad, JSC. Friday Charles v. The State of Lagos (SC.CR/503/2020, Friday March 31 2023)

WHAT IS A GROUND OF APPEAL?

It is settled law that a ground of appeal is basically a highlight of the error of law or fact or mixed law and fact made by the court in the decision sought to be set aside in the appeal. It is the sum total of the reason(s) why the decision on appeal is considered by learned counsel for the appellant to be wrong and liable to be set aside. It follows therefore that for a ground of appeal to be capable of achieving the purpose of setting aside the decision appealed against, it has to be very substantial and must relate to the ratio of the decision, not directed at the obiter dictum of the court or in the judgment.

– Mukhtar JSC. Nwankwo v. Ecumenical (2007)