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
SHARE ON
By virtue of section 233 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and section 22 of the Supreme Court Act Cap 15 Laws of Nigeria 2004, the word leave means permission. Therefore an appellant is bound, where necessary to seek the formal permission of the court below before setting an appeal in process. Leave of court where it is required is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right to appeal. This failure to obtain leave where it is required will render any appeal filed incompetent as no jurisdiction can be conferred on the appellate court. Hence an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds other than of law alone is incompetent and invalid unless leave of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court is first sought and obtained.
– Adekeye JSC. Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011)
It is further regular even if one only of the four grounds of appeal is found to involve a question of law, as that ground can on its own sustain the appeal. – Adekeye JSC. Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011)
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)
‘Unarguably, issues No. 1 and 2 were distilled from ground 1, albeit with other grounds of appeal Mr Ajayi for the appellant, had no answer to the contention of Mr. Falana, for the respondents, on this vital issue of law Thus, I take it that he has conceded to it. The law is that a ground of appeal is not to be split into two issues. That is, a ground of appeal is not to carry two issues or put in another way, two issues are not to be formulated from a ground of appeal. See the more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Adekunle Teriba v. Ayoade Tiamiyu Adeyemo (2010) 4 SCNJ 59 at P.67. Thus, whilst one issue for determination is permitted to be distilled from one ground of appeal or two or more grounds of appeal, two issues for determination cannot be distilled from one ground of appeal, otherwise both the issues and the ground of appeal will be liable to be struck out as being incompetent. See: Odoemena Nwaigwe and Ors v. Nze Edwin Okere (2008) 5 SCNJ 256; Yadis Nig. Ltd. v. Great Nigeria Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 5 SCNJ 86.’
— T.S. YAKUBU, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010
My Lords, I have for the sake of doing substantial justice to the parties taken time to read over and over again the above ground 6 and the more I read it the more meaningless it comes across to me. Both the grounds and the particulars taken together reveal no complaint against the judgment of the Court below when not a single rule or regulation not identified and evaluated by the Court below in its judgment was disclosed in the ground and its particulars. I therefore cannot but agree with the apt and unassailable submissions of the learned counsel for the 1st -4th Respondent that ground 6 defies all understanding and is thus vague and incompetent and I so hold. This objection is hereby upheld and consequently ground 6 is hereby struck out for being incompetent.
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)
Where the complaint in the ground of appeal is one of misunderstanding by the court of the law or misapplication of the law to the facts already established, it is a ground of Law. Where the ground of appeal disputes or questions the evaluation of facts by the court before applying the law, it is a ground of mixed law and fact.
– Rhodes-Vivour JSC. Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry