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!

SPECIFIC ISSUES CANNOT BE RAISED FROM AN OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

grounds of appeal

ISSUE DERIVED FROM BOTH COMPETENT & INCOMPETENT GROUND

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

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUES ARE ARGUED NOT GROUNDS OF APPEAL

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

CANNOT FRAME MORE ISSUES THAN THE NUMBER OF GROUNDS

The law is well settled that in practice, there should be no proliferation of issues. Therefore out of three grounds of appeal, an appellant cannot formulate or frame four issues. In other words, a party cannot frame more issues than the number of grounds of appeal.

– Adumein JCA. Adewoyin v. Executive Governor (2011)

Was this dictum helpful?

USE MOTION ON NOTICE TO CHALLENGE SOME OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Inspector Isa Sarki V. John Lamela (2016) LPELR — 40338 (CA), the Court of Appeal stated, “It is the law that where the purpose of an objection is merely to challenge some of the grounds of appeal and not the competence of the entire appeal, the best procedure is by way of a motion on notice since its success would not in any way terminate the entire appeal in limine. On the other hand, where the purpose of an objection is to terminate in limine the entirety of the appeal, the best procedure is by way of a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the entire appeal.”

Was this dictum helpful?

EVEN IF A GROUND OF APPEAL IS INELEGANT, IT WILL NOT BE STRUCK OUT

In short, the position, in my humble view, is that once it is possible to make sense out of a ground of appeal that complains both of error in law and misdirection in fact, the ground of appeal is valid, the defect in its form notwithstanding. The rationale behind this lies in the shift in emphasis from technical justice to substantial justice – from form to substance. In other words, though a ground of appeal that complains of an error in law and misdirection in fact may be inelegant in drafting and thereby defective in form, that defect alone is not sufficient to have it struck out provided the complaints therein are clear – see pages 265 – 266 of Aderounmu v. Olowu (supra) per Ayoola JSC.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

PURPOSE OF OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL

An omnibus ground of appeal is therefore designed to allow a complaint on evaluation of evidence and it encompasses complaint of improper evaluation of evidence. It implies that the judgment of the trial court cannot be supported by the weight of the evidence adduced by the successful party which the trial judge either wrongly accepted or that the inference drawn or conclusion reached by the trial Judge based on the accepted evidence cannot be justified. An omnibus ground of appeal also implies that there is no evidence which if accepted would support the findings of the trial judge.

– Ogwuegbu JSC. Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.