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!

ANY QUESTION WHICH DOES NOT RESOLVE THE APPEAL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS NOT A PROPER ISSUE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

It needs to be stressed that every point in controversy between the parties in an appeal is, in a loose sense, an issue. But for purposes of a brief, an issue is one, which is so crucial that if it is decided in favour of a party, he is entitled to win the appeal. Any question which does not adequately raise a substantial issue which if resolved one way or the other will affect the result of the appeal is not a proper issue for a brief. See Okoye v. Nigerian Construction and Furniture Co. Ltd. (1991) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 199) 501 at 542.

— Edozie JSC. Cosm As Ezukwu v. Peter Ukachukwu Jude Ukachukwu (SC. 160/2000, 2 July 2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

issue

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

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?

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 of appeal, the Court must ensure that any issue so modified, or re-formulated comes within the ambit of the complaint contained in the grounds of appeal.

– Tijjani Abubakar, JSC. Nwobike v. FRN (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT AMOUNTS TO PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES IN AN APPEAL

Now, what would in law amount to proliferation of issues in an appeal is no longer a vexed issue as it has been pronounced upon severally by the appellate Courts, including the apex Court. While it is true that an issue for determination must flow from the ground(s) of appeal and that this Court has the power to formulate issues for determination in appropriate and deserving circumstances or to re-formulate or modify the issues formulated by the parties, it is well settled law that an Appellant, as well as a Respondent, is not permitted or allowed to raise issues in excess of the grounds of appeal and that where the number of issues formulated are more than the number of the grounds of appeal it amounts to nothing but a proliferation of issues, which in law is not acceptable. See Dr. Arthur Agwuncha Nwankwo & Ors. v. Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua & Ors. (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518. See also Unilorin v. Oluwadare (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 808) 557;Padawa v. Jatau (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) 243; Sogbesan v. Ogunbiyi (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 969) 19; Agu v. Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 130) 385;Adelusola & Ors v. Akinde & Ors (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 295.

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. University of Lagos v. Mbaso (2018) – CA/L/775/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUE DISTILLED FROM COMBINED GROUNDS WILL BE SAVED WHERE ONE GROUNDS SUPPORTS IT

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

DEPARTING FROM PLEADINGS GOES TO NO ISSUE

This was raised by the appellant who claimed that it became his property on dissolution of the partnership and ceased to be partnership property. Having raised it, the onus of proof lay on him to establish by evidence that the property ceased to be partnership property. That is the law. However, he claimed in his testimony that the property was never partnership property but his own personal property. Since this was a departure from the pleadings, it went to no issue. Further, the Court will not allow a party to depart from the case set out in his pleadings. See Abimbola George v. Dominion Flour Mills (1963) All NLR. 71.

— Obaseki, JSC. Salawu Ajide V. Kadiri Kelani (SC.76/1984, 29 Nov 1985)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.