EVEN IF A GROUND OF APPEAL IS INELEGANT, IT WILL NOT BE STRUCK OUT

WHEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ONE OF LAW

In NNPC v. FAMFA OIL LTD. (2012) 17 N.W.L.R. (Part 1328) S.C. 148, this Court, while faced with a similar objection to the grounds of appeal, went ahead to deal extensively with the criteria for identifying when a ground of appeal is one of law, of fact, or of mixed fact and law. Rhodes-Vivours J.S.C., at Pp. 175 – 176, Paragraphs C – H, as follows: “…. In Nwadike v. Ibekwe (Supra), this Court explained further that: (a) It is an error in law if the adjudicating Tribunal took into account some wrong criteria in reaching its conclusion. (b) Several issues that can be raised on legal interpretation of deeds, documents, terms of arts and inference drawn there from are grounds of law. (c) Where a ground deals merely with a matter of inference, even if it be inference of fact, a ground framed from such is a ground of law. (d) Where a tribunal states the law in point wrongly, it commits an error in law. (e) Where the complaint is that there was no evidence or no admissible evidence upon which a finding or decision was based, same is regarded as a ground of law. (f) If a Judge considers matters which are not before him and relies on them for the exercise of his discretion, he will be exercising same on wrong principles and this will be a question of law…..”

ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN THE GROUND OF APPEAL

The principle of law is that the grounds of appeal should in no circumstance be less than the issues for determination. Since the Respondent did not marry his issues with the grounds of appeal, I am left with one option – to strike out the Respondent’s third issue. Issue three in the Respondent’s brief is hereby struck out as it does not relate to any of grounds one or two of the appellant’s grounds of appeal. (See Omo v. JSC Delta State (2000) 7 SC (Pt. 11) page 1.

— N.S. Ngwuta, JSC. Henry Nwokearu V. The State (SC.227/2011, 24 MAY 2013)

NATURE & SCOPE OF OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL

It is important to bear in mind the nature and scope of omnibus ground of appeal in civil cases. It must be stressed that when a complaint is against the weight of evidence, the complaint is of necessity against the totality of the evidence adduced before the court and not on a finding of fact on a specific issue or document as the case may be. In the latter case, the finding should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal. See Ndiwe v. Okocha (supra). It cannot be used to raise issues of or errors in law. The complaint questions the appraisal and evaluation of all the evidence adduced and not the weight to be attached to any particular piece of evidence.

– Ogwuegbu JSC. Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996)

SPECIFIC ISSUES CANNOT BE RAISED FROM AN OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL

Dabo v. C.O.P.,Taraba State (2026) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2043) 577 at 590 — 591, D — F: ‘The rule on omnibus ground notwithstanding, an appellant who has specific issues on facts and law cannot ride on the wings of indolence in anchoring his appeal solely on the omnibus ground. In the case of Akinlagun & Ors. v. Oshoboja (2006) LPELR – 348(SC); (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.993) 60, this court held that: “An omnibus ground of appeal is a general ground of fact complaining against the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial. It is not against a specific finding of fact or any document. It cannot be used to raise any issue of law or error in law. See Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 476) 22.”

Similarly, in the case of Saraki v. Kotoye (1990) LPELR -15503 (SC); (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 143) 144, this court held that “The ground which complains that the decision, cannot be supported having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before the court is complete in itself. It is not vague and does not require particulars. It does not require particulars because the particulars or error are implicit; in the allegation of disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case before the court.“ Since the ground has no particulars, there is nothing specific to be raised separately. In the instant case, the notice of appeal to the lower court, is at pages 68 to 70 of the record of appeal. The sale ground of appeal is the omnibus ground. It was couched as follows: Ground of Appeal: The decision of the trial court is against the weight of evidence and upon receipt of the records of appeal, the appellants shall file and serve more grounds of appeal and their particulars. Then, the relief is at page 69 of the same record and it reads: “Reliefs sought from the court: 1. An order of this honourable court allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the trial court awarding damages of N5,000,000 (FiveMillion Naira Only) against the appellant“. The relief sought from the court was specific. There, the appellant was praying for the judgment of the trial court awarding damages of N5,000,000 to be set aside. This is what the appellant before us is contending with before this court. It is obvious here that the appellants’ complaint, or what the appellants wanted to redress is the damages of N5,000,000. There is no ground of appeal before the lower court dealing with the specific fact or issue of the said damages. It is trite law that an appeal court dealing with the omnibus ground is limited to the appraisal of the total evidence and not on a finding or non-finding of a specific factor issue. Specific issues can only be raised by a substantive ground of appeal. See the case of Osolu v. Osolu (2003) LPELR – 2810(SC); (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt.832) 608. It follows therefore, that you cannot use omnibus ground to attack a specific finding in a case. In the instant case, the appellants in the notice of appeal filed at the lower court indicated expressly that the part of the decision he complained of was the award of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) damages but he failed to raise any ground of appeal to attack that specific issue of damages. The only ground of appeal they filed was the omnibus ground and they indicated that “upon the receipt of the records of appeal, the appellants shall file and serve more grounds of appeal and their particulars”. This, the appellants failed to do.’

WHERE PARTICULARS NOT IN SUPPORT OF GROUND, GROUND IS INCOMPETENT

Access Bank Plc v Sijuwade (2016) LPELR 40188 (CA) per Danjuma JCA: “… the sum total of all legal principles and judicial precedents on the relationship between ground of appeal and supporting particulars is that on reading a ground of appeal and its particulars, the adverse party must be left in no doubt as to what the complaint of the appellant is. In other words, a ground of appeal and its particulars go together. Where the particulars in support of ground are not related to the ground, the ground is incompetent. See Hambe v Hueze (2001) 2 SC 26.”