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 settled law that issues for determination must be distilled from grounds of appeal which ground(s) must attack the ratio decidendi of the judgment not anything said by the way, or obiter dicta or be formulated in vacuo , as issue 5 in the instant case. – Onnoghen JSC. Chami v. UBA (2010)
Let me also add that, there is nothing in our law or rules which sets a time limit for bringing an application to amend the grounds of appeal, and the Court has a discretion to allow the amendment upon such terms as it may deem just. See IBRAHIM VS. OSHOMAH (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.197) 286; OPARA VS. SCHLUMBERGER & ANOR (2006) 7 S.C. (Pt.III) 56.
– Bage, JSC. GTB v. Innoson (2017) – SC.694/2014(R)
I have taken a calm look at ground 6 and considered the submissions of counsel to the respective parties and it does appear to me that though the law is that a ground of appeal should not be considered in isolation of its particulars in order to understand its purports, yet it is also the law that a ground of appeal which defies understanding or is not particularized or indeed contains irrelevant particulars is simply a vague ground of appeal and thus incompetent. See CBN and Anor v. Okojie and Ors (2002) LPELR- 836 (SC).
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)
It is trite law that one issue can contain many consistent grounds of appeal, but a single ground of appeal cannot give rise to two or more issues.
– Denton West JCA. Salaja v. Salaja (2013)
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.’
It is also settled law that an issue for determination can only be distilled from a competent ground or competent grounds of appeal. As observed earlier, in a situation where an issue for determination is derived from both competent and incompetent grounds, the issue is liable to be struck out for incompetence.
– Kekere-Ekun JSC. CITEC v. Francis (2021) – SC.720/2017 CITEC v. Francis (2021) – SC.720/2017
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry