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!

COURT CANNOT CONSIDER AN ISSUE NOT PLACED BEFORE IT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

issue

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?

ANY MATTER NOT COVERED BY ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION IS OF NO MOMENT

In Saliba v Yassin (2002) 4 NWLR (pt. 756) 1, this court stated clearly that all appeals are decided upon the issues formulated for determination. What this means is that any matter not covered by any issue for determination is of no moment.

— I. Okoro JSC. Atiku, PDP v. INEC, Tinubu, APC (SC/CV/935/2023, 26th day of October, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

AN APPEAL COURT CAN FORMULATE AN ISSUE – RELATEABLE TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL

From the furore of the complaints of the appellant which seem more academic than based on legal principles, it needs be restated that the Court of Appeal has a wide unfettered discretionary power to formulate its own issues in the interest of Justice, provided they relate to the grounds of appeal and flow therefrom. Stated in other words, an Appeal Court can formulate its own issues where in its opinion, the issues formulated by the parties would not justify or equitably dispose off the appeal before it. Further still, an Appeal Court can also with in the same manner, prefer or adopt the issue or issues formulated by any of the parties to an appeal where same would enable it do justice to the appeal.

– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Makanjuola v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

A PARTY CANNOT CANVASS ARGUMENT OUTSIDE OF ISSUES FRAMED

It is clear that both issues are confined to the competence of the plaintiffs/respondents to sue in the matter. As they do not extend to the competence of the defendants/appellants to defend the action, I shall not go there. This is because parties are, bound by the issues formulated in their briefs. In other words, a party cannot advance an argument outside the issue or issues formulated in the brief without leave of Court. This stems from the larger ambit of our adjectival law that parties are, bound by their briefs.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Mozie & Ors. v. Mbamalu & Ors. (2006) – S.C.345/2001

Was this dictum helpful?

AN ISSUE IS THE QUESTION FOR RESOLUTION WHICH DETERMINES THE DISPUTE

That is to say the appellant having succeeded in establishing that the respondent’s application to register the foreign judgment was filed out of time, the need to rely on the other issues to arrive at the same result is quite necessary. An issue is the question in dispute between the parties necessary for determination of the suit or appeal. An issue, which is normally raised by way of a question, is usually a proposition of law or fact in dispute between the parties necessary for determination by the court, a determination which will normally affect the result of the suit or appeal. See Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 417; Okoromaka v. Chief Odiri (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.408) 411 and Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt.864) 580 at 641-642 … As the determination of the five issues in the appellant’s brief of argument will not affect the result of this appeal, the issues have ceased to be the real issues for determination between the parties in this appeal. This is because courts of law are not established to deal with hypothetical and academic questions. Courts are established to deal with life issues which relate to matters in difference between the parties. See National Insurance Corporation v. Power and Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.14) 1 at 22; Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.25) 710 at 728; Ekperokun v. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.34) 162 at 179; Titiloye v. Olupo (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt.205) 519 at 534; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.622) 290 at 330 and Macaulay v. R.Z.B. of Austria (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt.852) 282 at 300.

— M. Mohammed, JSC. Marine Co. v Overseas Union (2006) – SC.108/2001

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.