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
SHARE ON
The law is trite that issues for determination must be distilled from the grounds of appeal, which must, in turn arise from the ratio decidendi of the decision appealed against. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition) states clearly that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle or rule of law upon which a court’s decision is founded. It is the reason for the decision or the reasoning, principle or ground upon which a case is decided. Put differently, the ratio decidendi of a decision can be clearly differentiated from the other parts of the decision referred to as obita dicta or obiter dictum, which simply means “something said in passing.” It is a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that does not embody the decision of the court. See Oleksander & Ors v. Lonestar Drilling Company Limited & Anor (2015) LPELR-24614 (SC), (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1464) 337; Daniel v. INEC (2015) LPELR – 24566 (SC); (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; Ajibola v. Ajadi (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 14.
— Okoro, JSC. Anyanwu v. PDP (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1710) 134
It is important to bear in mind the nature and scope of omnibus ground of appeal in civil cases. It must be stressed that when a complaint is against the weight of evidence, the complaint is of necessity against the totality of the evidence adduced before the court and not on a finding of fact on a specific issue or document as the case may be. In the latter case, the finding should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal. See Ndiwe v. Okocha (supra). It cannot be used to raise issues of or errors in law. The complaint questions the appraisal and evaluation of all the evidence adduced and not the weight to be attached to any particular piece of evidence.
– Ogwuegbu JSC. Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996)
In this preliminary objection, the crux of the complaint is that the grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal are vague and unreasonable. Vague and unreasonable grounds of appeal from our established principles of law are those grounds of appeal couched in a manner which does not provide any solid or explicit standard for it to be understood. An illusive complaint which is lacking in depth and is more windy, evasive, ambiguous, debatable, disputable and inexplicable. See the cases of Set Success Ent.& Co., Ltd v. Ibeju-Lekki Local Government (2021) LPELR — 56608 (SC), Adamu v. C.O.P. Plateau State Command (2020) LPELR – 51956 (CA).
— S.J. Adah, JCA. Luck Guard v. Adariku (2022) – CA/A/1061/2020
It is settled law that issues for determination must relate to and arise from the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and any issue that is not distilled from the grounds of appeal is incompetent and must be struck out. A respondent must formulate his issues from the grounds of appeal and he has no business to raise any issue outside them when he did not file a cross appeal or a respondent’s notice that the judgment of the court should be affirmed on other grounds. See:- “ Carlen (Nig.) Ltd. v. University of Jos and Anor (1994) 1 SCNJ 72 Agwundu and Ors v. Onwumere (1994) 1 SCNJ 106 Godwin v. C.A.C. (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 162 Shitta Bey v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 392.
— Opene JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)
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)
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