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!

APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT ALLOW FRESH ISSUE ON APPEAL TO BE TAKEN

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

issue

ISSUE MUST ARISE FROM A GROUND OF APPEAL

It is trite law that an issue for determination in an appeal must relate to and arise from the grounds of appeal filed. Therefore any issue which is not related to any ground of appeal is not only vague but also incompetent and liable to be ignored in the determination of the appeal or struck out.

– Mahmud JSC. Ogiorio v. Igbinovia (1998)

Was this dictum helpful?

PROPER APPROACH TO ISSUES OF FACT

In Adeyeye v. Ajiboye (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.61) 432 at p.451, I referred to what I thought was the proper approach to the issues of fact and findings of fact by trial Courts viz: “The proper approach for any trial court is first set out the claim or claims; then the pleadings, then the Issues arising from those pleadings. Having decided on the issues in dispute the trial Judge will then consider the evidence in proof of each issue, then decide on which side to believe and this has got to be a belief based on the preponderance of credible evidence and the probabilities of the case. After this the trial Judge will then record his logical and consequential findings of fact. It is after such a finding that the trial court can then discuss the applicable law against the background of his findings of fact.”

— Oputa JSC. Onwuka & Ors. V. Ediala & Anor. (SC.18/1987, 20 January 1989)

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT CANNOT CONSIDER AN ISSUE NOT PLACED BEFORE IT

The settled position of the law is that when an issue is not placed before the court for discourse, the Court has no business whatsoever delving into it and dealing with it. A court of law has no business whatsoever delving into issues that are not properly placed before it for resolution, a Court of law has no business being overgenerous and open-handed, dishing out unsolicited reliefs, a Court of law is neither father Christmas granting unsolicited reliefs, nor Knight errant looking for skirmishes all about the place, a Court of law as an impartial arbiter must confine its self to the reliefs sought and the issues before it submitted for resolution.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

ESSENCE OF FORMULATION OF ISSUES – APPEAL SHOULD BE ARGUED ON ISSUES

Before considering the arguments of counsel in this appeal, I consider it a matter of cardinal importance to remind counsel of the often made errors in their argument of returning to the grounds of appeal filed after formulating issues for determination based on the grounds of appeal. All arguments in the appeal after formulation of issues should be based on the issues for determination as formulated. See Adelaja v Fanoiki (1990) 2 NWLR (Part 131) 137. Stricto sensu, no reference thereafter ought to be made to the grounds of appeal filed. The essence of the formulation of issues is to narrow the relevant issues in dispute within those so formulated Attorney-General Bendel State v Aidegun (1989) 4 NWLR (Part 118) 646. Hence as the issues arise from the grounds and may and usually encompass a number of grounds of appeal, it is sufficient to argue the appeal on the issues for determination formulated. See Ogbunyinya v Okudo (No.2)(1990) 4 NWLR (Part 146) 551 SC. The approach adopted by counsel in this appeal by arguing the appeal on the grounds rather than on the issues formulated, suggests that sufficient attention was not paid to the formulation of the issues for determination. Vide Egbe v Alhaji (1990) 1 NWLR (Part 128) 546. –

Karibe-Whyte JSC. Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) – SC 104/1989

Was this dictum helpful?

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. It is not by formulating large number of issues as it is in this case, that appeals are won. With respect, I do not see the place of eight issues in this appeal. They are prolix and repetitive. It is not my intention to reproduce the issues formulated by the parties.

— Niki Tobi, JCA. Nnamdi Eriobuna & Ors. V. Ikechukwu Obiorah (CA/E/77/99, 24 May 1999)

Was this dictum helpful?

DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO EITHER ADOPT, REFRAME OR FORMULATE NEW ISSUES IN THE DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL

“In Considering the issues for determination in an appeal formulated in the briefs of argument of the parties, an appellate court can, either adopt or reframe or even formulate new issues, in the determination of the appeal. This is the law as enunciated in the case of FRN V. Ogbegolu (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1010) P. 188 @ 225 where it was held that, after examining the issues for determination, it is the duty of an appellate court to either adopt those in the briefs of argument or formulate new ones which he believes would determined the real complaint or grievances of the appellant. See also Adaku Vs Ajeh (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 346) P. 582 and Ikegwuha V. Ohawuchin (1996) 3 NWLR (PT. 435) P. 146.”

— I.S. Bdliya, JCA. Umar Ibrahim v Nasiru Danladi Mu’azu & 2 Ors. (2022) – CA/G/317/2019

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.