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!

ISSUE FROM INCOMPETENT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ITSELF INCOMPETENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Ordinarily, any issue formulated from an incompetent ground of appeal is itself incompetent and must be struck out. Issues are the important questions formulated for determination by the court and could be distilled from more than one ground of appeal. See; Sunday Madagwa V. The State (1988) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 68 at 76 … Generally, issues are not meant to be formulated on each ground of appeal but raised or distilled out of a combination of the essential complaints of the appellant in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, issues must necessarily relate to facts or law decided by the court whose decision is appealed against. In other words, it is ideal to distill or formulate an issue from more than one ground of appeal but where this is not done or it is impossible, just only one issue may be raised from one ground of appeal. Therefore, a valid Notice of Appeal with one ground of appeal and a single issue for determination is sufficient to sustain an appeal … There is no doubt that it is now an established practice that an appeal is decided upon the issues raised or formulated for determination of the court. In effect, when issues for determination are formulated, the grounds of appeal upon which they are based or from which the issues are formulated become extinguished or expired. The argument of the appeal is then based on the issues so formulated but not on the grounds.

— O. Ariwoola, JSC. African Intl. Bank Ltd. v Integrated Dimensional System (2012) – SC.278/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

issue

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES IS CONDEMNED

The appellants formulated eight issues for determination, while the respondents formulated four issues. I will not reproduce the twelve issues here. I do not have such space. But I have enough space to ask what are eight issues doing in an appeal that has only five grounds of appeal? This Court has condemned proliferation of issues. As a matter of procedure, issues should not outnumber grounds of appeal. This is because issues are framed from one or more grounds of appeal, preferably more than one ground of appeal. The reverse position is the practice and it is that grounds of appeal outnumber issues. See generally Attorney-General Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 646; Ugo v. Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566; Adelaja v. Farouk (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 137; Anonk Lodge Hotels Ltd, v. Mercantile Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 284) 72.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT SHOULD NOT DETERMINE ISSUES MEANT FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE

It is the settled position of the law that a court should not comment on or decide at preliminary stage matters or issues which are supposed to be decided in the substantive case. See: NWANKWO & ORS v YAR’ADUA & ORS (2010) LPELR-2109(SC), at page 71, paras. B-F, per Commassie, JSC; and OCHOLI ENOJO JAMES, SAN v INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR-24494(SC) at page 92, para. G, per Okoro, JSC.

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Peter Obi & Anor. v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/03/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUES FORMULATED ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE

Issues for determination are formulated’ and not supposed to be argumentative’ as formulated. The parties are expected to coin their issues for determination as precise as possible with professional elegance and brevity but without sacrificing its essential messages. By practice, issues formulated are different from issues argued or arguments on issues. Arguments or analogies on issues formulated are not to be contained in the issues so formulated. Arguments and analogies are to be supplied separately to amplify on the issues so formulated. The Respondents’ Counsel is found inadequate in this regard for formulating convoluted issues for determination at pages 7-8 of the Respondents’ Brief.

— S.D. Bage, JSC. Onyekwuluje v Animashaun (2019) – SC.72/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT OF APPEAL SHOULD CONSIDER ALL ISSUES

It is trite law that an appeal court must consider all issues for determination raised before it except where it is of the view that a consideration of one or more issues is enough to dispose of the appeal. In such a situation, the court may adopt such issues as may dispose of the appeal and may not be bound to consider all the other Issues he considers irrelevant and unnecessary.

— M.A. Danjuma JCA. Folorunsho Ogboja v. Access Bank Plc (CA/AK/38/2013, 18 MAY 2015)

Was this dictum helpful?

ANY QUESTION WHICH DOES NOT RESOLVE THE APPEAL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS NOT A PROPER ISSUE

It needs to be stressed that every point in controversy between the parties in an appeal is, in a loose sense, an issue. But for purposes of a brief, an issue is one, which is so crucial that if it is decided in favour of a party, he is entitled to win the appeal. Any question which does not adequately raise a substantial issue which if resolved one way or the other will affect the result of the appeal is not a proper issue for a brief. See Okoye v. Nigerian Construction and Furniture Co. Ltd. (1991) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 199) 501 at 542.

— Edozie JSC. Cosm As Ezukwu v. Peter Ukachukwu Jude Ukachukwu (SC. 160/2000, 2 July 2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

ANY MATTER OUTSIDE THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM GOES TO NO ISSUE

What it means is that his cause of action and his grievances must be contained in statement of claim, with which he is bound, for any matter outside the periphery of the statement of claim i.e. pleadings vide evidence goes to no issue and are bound to be ignored. See Emegokwe v. Okadigbo 1973 4 SC. 113, Shell P. B. v. Abedi 1974 1 SC 23, and Umuoffia v. Ndem 1973 2 SC 69. Another important aspect of an action is proof of the content of the pleading. In this respect, the law is trite that actions are proved on preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. See Elias v. Omo-Bare 1982 5 SC. 25, Woluchem v. Gudi 1981 5 SC. 291, and Akinlemibola v. C.O.P. 1976 6 SC. 205.

— A.M. Mukhtar JSC. Ohochukwu V. AG Rivers State & Ors. (SC.207/2004 • 17 February 2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.