I have to observe that learned counsel for the appellants did not make any submission in relation to issue No C as formulated by him in the brief of argument and is consequently deemed to have been abandoned.
– WS Onnoghen, JSC. Calabar CC v. Ekpo (2008)
SHARE ON
‘Unarguably, issues No. 1 and 2 were distilled from ground 1, albeit with other grounds of appeal Mr Ajayi for the appellant, had no answer to the contention of Mr. Falana, for the respondents, on this vital issue of law Thus, I take it that he has conceded to it. The law is that a ground of appeal is not to be split into two issues. That is, a ground of appeal is not to carry two issues or put in another way, two issues are not to be formulated from a ground of appeal. See the more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Adekunle Teriba v. Ayoade Tiamiyu Adeyemo (2010) 4 SCNJ 59 at P.67. Thus, whilst one issue for determination is permitted to be distilled from one ground of appeal or two or more grounds of appeal, two issues for determination cannot be distilled from one ground of appeal, otherwise both the issues and the ground of appeal will be liable to be struck out as being incompetent. See: Odoemena Nwaigwe and Ors v. Nze Edwin Okere (2008) 5 SCNJ 256; Yadis Nig. Ltd. v. Great Nigeria Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 5 SCNJ 86.’
— T.S. YAKUBU, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010
An issue is derived from a ground where the subject matter of the issue is the same as the subject matter of the complain in the ground. As this court has established in a long line of cases overtime, any issue raised for determination in an appeal that is not based on or covered by any ground of the appeal is not valid for consideration and must be struck out.
– Agim JSC. Pillars v. William (2021)
In my opinion, Issue (A) is not based on any of the seven grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. I will have to therefore, discountenance it.
— Uwais, CJN. Momah v VAB Petro (2000) – SC. 183/1995
In Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Nwaokolo (1995) 6 NWLR (Part 400) 127: “The appellants, as clearly depicted on the Record and in the brief of argument they filed, had identified three issues for the consideration of the court below. It is also on record that appellants argued fully all three issues and by implication, the eight grounds, to which they related. At the hearing of the appeal by the court below, it is common ground that the appellants adopted their brief of argument. However, without justification the majority judgment of that court now assailed before this Court, failed to pronounce on Grounds 4, 5 and 6 covered by appellants’ Issues 2 and 3 thereat, both of which have prompted Ground 2 in the appeal to this Court which incidentally, is covered by Issue 2 now under consideration. The judgment of the majority in the court below neither adverted to nor pronounced on these grounds (4, 5 and 6 respectively).” “Having considered the grounds (4, 5 and 6) which the court below failed to consider or pronounce upon, the next logical question to ask is, what are the consequences of such a failure? Failure to consider grounds of appeal, it is now established by decisions of this Court, amount to lack of fair hearing and a miscarriage of justice. (See Atano v AG Bendel (1988)2 NWLR (Part 75) 201). See also Kotoye v CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 98) 419 where Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC held at page 448 of the Report thus:- ‘For the rule of fair hearing is not a technical doctrine. It is one of substance. The question is not whether a party entitled to be heard before deciding had in fact been given an opportunity of hearing. Once an appellate court comes to the conclusion that the party was entitled to be heard before a decision was reached but was not given the opportunity of a hearing the order/judgment thus entered is bound to be set aside.’ Fair hearing within the meaning of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution means a trial conducted according to all legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties vide Ntukidem v Oko (1986) 5 NWLR (Part 45) 909.”
The law is trite that issues for determination must be distilled from the grounds of appeal, which must, in turn arise from the ratio decidendi of the decision appealed against. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition) states clearly that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle or rule of law upon which a court’s decision is founded. It is the reason for the decision or the reasoning, principle or ground upon which a case is decided. Put differently, the ratio decidendi of a decision can be clearly differentiated from the other parts of the decision referred to as obita dicta or obiter dictum, which simply means “something said in passing.” It is a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that does not embody the decision of the court. See Oleksander & Ors v. Lonestar Drilling Company Limited & Anor (2015) LPELR-24614 (SC), (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1464) 337; Daniel v. INEC (2015) LPELR – 24566 (SC); (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; Ajibola v. Ajadi (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 14.
— Okoro, JSC. Anyanwu v. PDP (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1710) 134
I have looked at the short Ruling of the trial Court on pages 29 and 30 of the Records, and could see no reference in the Ruling to the concerns expressed by the Appellant in grounds (IV) and (V) of the appeal (which are also the issues (IV) and (V)). That means, the grounds (IV) and (V) and the issues, therefrom, formulated by the Appellant were completely outside the contemplation and purview or reasoning of the trial Court when it reached its conclusions. The law is trite that an appeal (the grounds and issue therefrom) must be founded on and derived from a valid complaint touching on the ratio decidendi (live issue) of the decision appealed against. See the case of Obosi Vs NIPOST (2013) LPELR -21397 CA, where it was held: “An issue for determination of appeal must flow from or predicate on the ground(s) of appeal, which, in turn, must derive from or challenge the ratio decidendi or live issue in the judgment appealed against.” See also Unilorin Vs Olwawepo (2012)52 WRN 42, held 1; Alataha Vs Asin (1999)5 NWLR (pt. 601)32; Punch Nig. Ltd. Vs Jumsum Nig. Ltd. (2011)12 NWLR pt 1260)162.
— I.G. Mbaba, JCA. Anozia v. Nnani & Anor. (2015) – CA/OW/29/2013
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry