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!

PURPOSE OF FRAMING OF ISSUES

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

✓ In Unity Bank & Anor V. Edward Bonari (2008) 2 SCM 193 at 240, this court had opined thus: “It is now firmly settled that the purpose of reframing issue or issues is to lead to a more judicious and proper determination of an appeal. In other words, the purpose is to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity.” See also, Musa Sha (Jnr.) & Anor V. Da Ray Kwan & 4 ors (2000) 5 SCNJ 101 (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt 670) 685.

✓ In Sha V. Kwan (supra) at 705 this court has stated thus: “So long as it will not lead to injustice to the opposite side, appellate courts possess the power and in the interest of justice, to reject, modify or reframe any or all issues formulated by the parties…”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

issue

A DOUBLE BARRELED ISSUE

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 Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

ISSUE REFORMULATED BY COURT MUST BE ROOTED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

I have no doubt at all, that a court has the inherent power, in the interest of justice, to reject, modify or re-frame issues distilled for the determination of a case before it. However, the exercise of this power is not open ended or limitless, the issue so formulated must be rooted in the grounds...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

WHAT A PARTY MUST DO TO RAISE FRESH POINT ON APPEAL

Where a party seeks to raise a fresh point in the Supreme Court, he must: (a) obtain leave of the Supreme Court (b) ensure that the new points sought to be so raised involve substantial issues of substantive or procedural law which need to be allowed to prevent an obvious miscarriage of justice. (c) show...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

APPEAL COURT MUST DECIDE ALL RELEVANT ISSUES WITHIN THE RECORD

It is good law that an appellate court must examine and decide on all relevant issues in the appeal. That is what the Court of Appeal did and I cannot fault the court. This court cannot gag the Court of Appeal in the re-evaluation of evidence, as long as the court does that within the...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

COURT SHOULD NOT DETERMINE ISSUES MEANT FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE

It is the settled position of the law that a court should not comment on or decide at preliminary stage matters or issues which are supposed to be decided in the substantive case. See: NWANKWO & ORS v YAR’ADUA & ORS (2010) LPELR-2109(SC), at page 71, paras. B-F, per Commassie, JSC; and OCHOLI ENOJO JAMES,...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

APPEALS ARE NOT WON BASED ON PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES

As is the practice, briefs were duly filed and exchanged. The 1st Appellant formulated eight issues for determination, the 2nd to 6th appellants, four and the 1st respondent, five. This Court and the Supreme Court have said it times without number that appeals are not won by the quantity of issues but by their quality....

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

No more related dictum to show.