It is usually difficult to out rightly determine whether a ground of a law is purely one of law alone or is of mixed law and fact. Where a counsel is confronted with such difficulty, the safest thing for him to do, is to apply for leave on the ground or grounds of mixed law and facts.
— P.A. Galinje JSC. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Anor. (SC.535/2013(R), 23 June 2017)
SHARE ON
It is necessary to emphasise the purpose of formulating issues for determination in briefs. Like pleadings to a litigation between the parties, the issues formulated are intended to accentuate the real issues for determination before the Court. The grounds of appeal allege the complaints of errors of law, fact or mixed law and fact against the judgment appealed against. The issues for determination accentuate the issues in the grounds of appeal relevant to the determination of the appeal in the light of the grounds of errors alleged. Hence the issues for determination cannot and should not be at large, but must fall within the purview of the grounds of appeal filed.
— A.G. Karibi-Whyte, JSC. Olowosago V. Adebanjo (SC.134/86, 29 Sep 1988)
It is settled law that where a respondent filed neither cross-appeal nor respondent’s notice, he does not have an unrestrained or unbridled freedom to raise issues for determination which have no bearing or relevance to the ground(s) of appeal filed. – Onnoghen JSC. Chami v. UBA (2010)
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)
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)
It is also trite that an Omnibus Ground of appeal is a general ground of fact complaining against the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial, see IREJU NWOKIDU AND 3 ORS V MARK OKANU AND ANOR (2010) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 136, ODOEMENA NWAIGWE AND ORS V NZE EDWIN OKERE (2008) 5-6 SC (Pt. 11) 93. Put in another way, an Omnibus Ground of Appeal is a complaint on evaluation of evidence which encompasses a complaint that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence before the Court, see AJIBONA V KOLAWOLE (1996) 12 SCNJ 270.
— M.N. Oniyangi, JCA. Jos Met. Dev. v. Umealakei (2020) – CA/J/481/2019
It is true that once no leave was shown to have been obtained by the Appellant before filing the grounds of appeal alleging error of facts based on evidence the said grounds together with the issues distilled therefrom and the arguments proffered thereon are liable to be struck out. See Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 718; Ogbechie v. Onochie (1986) 2 NWLR (pt. 23) 484; Ifediorah v. Ume (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 74) 5.
— M.U. Peter-Odili, JSC. Ugo v. Ugo (2007) – CA/A/110/2007
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry