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)
SHARE ON
Issue 1 was formulated from ground 1 while Issue 2 does not flow from any of the seven grounds of Appeal. No Issue or Issues were formulated or argued in respect of grounds 2-7 of his Notice of Appeal. A fortiori, the Appellant appears to have abandoned grounds 2-7 of his Notice of Appeal. In the same vein, Issue No. 2 is not tied to any ground of Appeal and therefore is of no moment. See Yadis Nigeria Ltd v. Great Nigeria Insurance Coy Ltd (2007) 30 NSQR (Pt. 1) page 495.
— P.O. Elechi, JCA. Onoeyo v UBN (2014) – CA/C/66/2007
Issues for determination must therefore be based on, correlate and be tied to a ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal must reflect the grievance of the appellant against the judgment of the trial court. In the absence of a valid ground of appeal any issue formulated is necessarily incompetent and is liable to be struck out. Likewise any ground of appeal not related to any issue is deemed abandoned – becomes irrelevant to the appeal and is likely to be struck out.
– ADEKEYE, JCA. NOGA v. NICON (2007)
For issues for determination formulated by the respondent to be valid, they must be distilled from the grounds of appeal. In the instant case, as the respondents’ re-formulated issues are not shown to be tied to any of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant they are discountenanced. [Ondo State University v. Folayan (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.354) 1; Federal College of Education v. Anyanwu (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt.501) 533 at 560 referred to].
— Adeyemo v. Ida & Ors. (1998) – CA/1/6/92
In Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Nwaokolo (1995) 6 NWLR (Part 400) 127: “The appellants, as clearly depicted on the Record and in the brief of argument they filed, had identified three issues for the consideration of the court below. It is also on record that appellants argued fully all three issues and by implication, the eight grounds, to which they related. At the hearing of the appeal by the court below, it is common ground that the appellants adopted their brief of argument. However, without justification the majority judgment of that court now assailed before this Court, failed to pronounce on Grounds 4, 5 and 6 covered by appellants’ Issues 2 and 3 thereat, both of which have prompted Ground 2 in the appeal to this Court which incidentally, is covered by Issue 2 now under consideration. The judgment of the majority in the court below neither adverted to nor pronounced on these grounds (4, 5 and 6 respectively).” “Having considered the grounds (4, 5 and 6) which the court below failed to consider or pronounce upon, the next logical question to ask is, what are the consequences of such a failure? Failure to consider grounds of appeal, it is now established by decisions of this Court, amount to lack of fair hearing and a miscarriage of justice. (See Atano v AG Bendel (1988)2 NWLR (Part 75) 201). See also Kotoye v CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 98) 419 where Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC held at page 448 of the Report thus:- ‘For the rule of fair hearing is not a technical doctrine. It is one of substance. The question is not whether a party entitled to be heard before deciding had in fact been given an opportunity of hearing. Once an appellate court comes to the conclusion that the party was entitled to be heard before a decision was reached but was not given the opportunity of a hearing the order/judgment thus entered is bound to be set aside.’ Fair hearing within the meaning of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution means a trial conducted according to all legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties vide Ntukidem v Oko (1986) 5 NWLR (Part 45) 909.”
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
‘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
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry