The issues formulated by the parties are needlessly overlapping and superfluous in several aspects. The Appellants formulated twelve (12) issues for determination when in actual fact the contention in this appeal appears straightforward. On their part, the Respondents formulated seven (7) issues with inelegant verbosity. This is not necessary in a Court as busy as the Supreme Court, perhaps any Court at all.
— S.D. Bage, JSC. Onyekwuluje v Animashaun (2019) – SC.72/2006
SHARE ON
An issue is said to be extraneous, when it was neither raised nor canvassed at the trial court on pleadings and in the evidence of the parties.
– Ogbuagu JSC. Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) – SC
Both parties right at the trial court through to the court below, only canvassed arguments on issue of boundary and not on the root of title from which the plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed land. Ground No. 3 is therefore a new issue as it was not dealt with by the courts below and by the parties or canvassed by the parties in the two courts. In its judgment, the lower court found that the only issue fought by the parties at the trial court was that of boundary or demarcation of the land between the parties . The third ground of appeal filed by the appellant which introduced the issue of root of title is therefore a new issue which could only be introduced by the appellants with leave of this court since it was never raised at the two lower courts. The preliminary objection therefore succeeds with regard to the third ground of appeal only.
— Sanusi JCA. Ikeleve Daagir Ityavkase Ikyereve V. Joseph Kwaghkar (CA/J/45/97, 15 November 2004)
It is trite law that an appeal court must consider all issues for determination raised before it except where it is of the view that a consideration of one or more issues is enough to dispose of the appeal. In such a situation, the court may adopt such issues as may dispose of the appeal and may not be bound to consider all the other Issues he considers irrelevant and unnecessary.
— M.A. Danjuma JCA. Folorunsho Ogboja v. Access Bank Plc (CA/AK/38/2013, 18 MAY 2015)
It cannot be over-empahsised that the object of the formulation of issues for determination in an appeal is to enable the parties narrow the issues arising from the grounds of appeal filed in the interest of clarity, brevity and accuracy, thus enabling the court to consider together a number of associated and related grounds of appeal within the issue to which they are related in the determination of the appeal.
– Iguh, JSC. Clay v. Aina (1997)
It is trite law that an issue for determination in an appeal must relate to and arise from the grounds of appeal filed. Therefore any issue which is not related to any ground of appeal is not only vague but also incompetent and liable to be ignored in the determination of the appeal or struck out.
– Mahmud JSC. Ogiorio v. Igbinovia (1998)
That is to say the appellant having succeeded in establishing that the respondent’s application to register the foreign judgment was filed out of time, the need to rely on the other issues to arrive at the same result is quite necessary. An issue is the question in dispute between the parties necessary for determination of the suit or appeal. An issue, which is normally raised by way of a question, is usually a proposition of law or fact in dispute between the parties necessary for determination by the court, a determination which will normally affect the result of the suit or appeal. See Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 417; Okoromaka v. Chief Odiri (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.408) 411 and Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt.864) 580 at 641-642 … As the determination of the five issues in the appellant’s brief of argument will not affect the result of this appeal, the issues have ceased to be the real issues for determination between the parties in this appeal. This is because courts of law are not established to deal with hypothetical and academic questions. Courts are established to deal with life issues which relate to matters in difference between the parties. See National Insurance Corporation v. Power and Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.14) 1 at 22; Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.25) 710 at 728; Ekperokun v. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.34) 162 at 179; Titiloye v. Olupo (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt.205) 519 at 534; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.622) 290 at 330 and Macaulay v. R.Z.B. of Austria (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt.852) 282 at 300.
— M. Mohammed, JSC. Marine Co. v Overseas Union (2006) – SC.108/2001
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry