Having examined the argument by the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents above, it is my position that, by the rules of Court and practice, the issue or issues for determination are imperatively circumscribed or limited by the grounds of appeal. It is the law that any issue for determination not encompassed in the grounds of appeal is incompetent and should either be struck out or discountenanced.Abe v. University of Ilorin (2013) 6 NWLR (pt. 1319) page 183 at 205 paragraph D – G Honika Sawmill (Nig.) Ltd. v. Mary Okejie (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 326) 252 at 262. However, not tying the issues to the grounds of appeal is a mere inelegance, which cannot render the issue to be incompetent and struck out. This Court in UBN Ltd. v. Odusote Book Stores Ltd. (1995) NWLR (Pt.421) at 563 held thus: “While it is true that the rules as regards filing of brief of argument do not specifically state that counsel must indicate in his brief which of the ground or grounds of appeal are covered by an issue, it is highly desirable that, that should be done. This will assist the appellate Court tremendously in relating arguments on the issues to the grounds of appeal they are related, thus saving the time of the Court and enhancing quick disposal of the appeal.” From the above, it is crystal clear that the rules do not specifically state that counsel must indicate in his brief which of the ground or grounds of appeal are covered by an issue, therefore failure to do that is mere inelegance which cannot render the issue or issues void. See also Nigerian Ports Plc v. B.P. Pte Ltd. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.454) at 480 Hanseatic International Ltd. v. Usang 2002 13 NWLR (Pt.784) at 401-402.
— S.D. Bage JSC. Diamond Bank Plc V. H.R.H. Eze (Dr) Peter Opara & Ors. (SC.375/2012, 9 March 2018)