I think I ought to stress in the first place that it is the issues distilled from all appellant’s grounds of appeal that may be argued in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and not the grounds of appeal.
– Iguh, JSC. Oshatoba v. Olujitan (2000)
SHARE ON
It is obvious that the respondent has not appealed against the failure of the court below to consider other issues raised before it. The inference that can rightly be made from that position is that they took a chance that the judgment of the court below would be affirmed by this court. Having regard to what I have said above on the only issue considered by the court below, it is manifest that the risk taken by the respondent has not enured in its favour. On the other hand, as already observed, the trial court had found for the plaintiff/appellant in respect of all his claims against the respondent. As those findings remained undisturbed, it would not in my humble view, be right in the circumstances to now deny the appellant of the fruits of his success by remitting the case to the court below for the consideration of the issues that the court deliberately left unconsidered in its judgment. The justice of the case demands that the appellant should be granted all his claims as found by the trial court. And it is hereby granted accordingly.
— Ejiwunmi JSC. Melwani V. Five Star Industries Limited (SC.15/1994, 25 January 2002)
It is settled law that issues for determination must relate to and arise from the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and any issue that is not distilled from the grounds of appeal is incompetent and must be struck out. A respondent must formulate his issues from the grounds of appeal and he has no business to raise any issue outside them when he did not file a cross appeal or a respondent’s notice that the judgment of the court should be affirmed on other grounds. See:- “ Carlen (Nig.) Ltd. v. University of Jos and Anor (1994) 1 SCNJ 72 Agwundu and Ors v. Onwumere (1994) 1 SCNJ 106 Godwin v. C.A.C. (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 162 Shitta Bey v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 392.
— Opene JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)
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
My Lords, I have for the sake of doing substantial justice to the parties taken time to read over and over again the above ground 6 and the more I read it the more meaningless it comes across to me. Both the grounds and the particulars taken together reveal no complaint against the judgment of the Court below when not a single rule or regulation not identified and evaluated by the Court below in its judgment was disclosed in the ground and its particulars. I therefore cannot but agree with the apt and unassailable submissions of the learned counsel for the 1st -4th Respondent that ground 6 defies all understanding and is thus vague and incompetent and I so hold. This objection is hereby upheld and consequently ground 6 is hereby struck out for being incompetent.
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)
However, as an intermediate Court and in the event that I am overruled in finding that the issue has been rendered academic having already ruled that latter case filed in 2015 is an abuse, I will proceed to consider the issue of statute bar.
— J.H. Sankey, JCA. Zangye v Tukura (2018) – CA/MK/175/2017
This court deals with live issues and there is no need beating a dead horse as it will never rise again.
— T. Muhammad, JSC. VAB Petroleum v. Momah (2013) – SC.99/2004
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry