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!

ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN THE GROUND OF APPEAL

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

grounds of appeal

ISSUE MUST BE DISTILLED FROM GROUND OF APPEAL

The settled law is that an issue formulated for determination must be distilled from a ground of appeal, and where it has no ground of appeal to relate to, then it has no part to play in the determination of the appeal, and so the appellate court has no option than to disregard the said issue. Issue (1) in the appellant’s brief of argument also becomes incompetent and it is discountenanced.

– Mukhtar JSC. Nwankwo v. Ecumenical (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUE NOT TIED TO A GROUND OF APPEAL IS OF NO MOMENT

Issue 1 was formulated from ground 1 while Issue 2 does not flow from any of the seven grounds of Appeal. No Issue or Issues were formulated or argued in respect of grounds 2-7 of his Notice of Appeal. A fortiori, the Appellant appears to have abandoned grounds 2-7 of his Notice of Appeal. In the same vein, Issue No. 2 is not tied to any ground of Appeal and therefore is of no moment. See Yadis Nigeria Ltd v. Great Nigeria Insurance Coy Ltd (2007) 30 NSQR (Pt. 1) page 495.

— P.O. Elechi, JCA. Onoeyo v UBN (2014) – CA/C/66/2007

Was this dictum helpful?

PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE WHETHER A GROUND OF APPEAL IS INCOMPETENT

The principle to guide the court in deciding whether a ground of appeal is incompetent is as laid down in the case of Aderounmu v. Olowu (supra) at pages 265 – 266 which has been cited and relied upon by both counsel in this appeal. In that case, Ayoola JSC stated the law, inter alia , as follows: “… what is important in a ground of appeal and the test the court should apply is whether or not the impugned grounds show clearly what is complained of as error in law and what is complained of as misdirection or as the case may be, error of fact . The view, with which I am inclined to agree, is expressed in the Court of Appeal. See the case of Nteogwuija and Ors. v. Ikuru and Ors. (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 569) 267 at 310, that the mere fact that a ground of appeal is framed as an error and misdirection does not make it incompetent. In my view, only general propositions can be made in a matter in which the question is not as to form. Ultimately, it is for the court before which the question is raised to decide whether viewed objectively, the ground satisfies the requirements of preciseness and clarity … what makes a ground incompetent is not whether it is framed as an error and a misdirection but whether by so stating it, the other side is left in doubt and without adequate information as to what the complaint of the appellants actually is.”

— Onnoghen JSC. Aigbobahi & Ors. v. Aifuwa, Osabuohien & Ors. (SC. 194/2001, 3 Feb 2006)

Was this dictum helpful?

COUNSEL SHOULD INDICATE WHAT GROUND AN ISSUE WAS RAISED FROM

As can be observed, the issues formulated in the Appellant’s brief are indicated to have distilled from grounds 2 and 8 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal while there is no indication by the Respondent’s Counsel, from which of the grounds of the appeal, since there is no cross appeal here or a Respondent’s notice, the additional issue was raised. The requirement of diligent of brief writing in the appellate Courts is that counsel should indicate from which grounds of an appeal every issue/s submitted for determination in an appeal, was/were distilled.

– Garba, JCA. Dunlop v. Gaslink (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

NO NEED TO APPEAL SPECIFIC FINDINGS WHEN WHOLE DECISION HAS BEEN APPEALED

It has been argued by the respondent’s counsel that the appellant did not appeal against this finding and some other findings made by the learned trial Judge, I must say that she was not given a fair hearing and has appealed against the whole judgment and does not need to appeal against everything said or every observation made by the learned trial Judge.

— Opene JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

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.’

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.