OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL REQUIRES LEAVE OF COURT

A SINGLE GROUND OF APPEAL CAN SUSTAIN AN APPEAL

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)

A GROUND OF APPEAL CANNOT BE BASED ON AN OBITER DICTUM

The law is trite that a ground of appeal cannot be based on an obiter dictum. A ground of appeal is based on a ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum is, as a general principle of law, not binding on courts; a ratio decidendi is.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE ISSUES FORMULATED

A principle of formulation of issues in appeal is that the grounds of appeal should in no circumstance be less than the issues for determination. While the Court may tolerate equal number of grounds of appeal and issues framed therefrom, as in this case, a situation where there are less grounds of appeal than issues for determination will not be tolerated. See Agu v. Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 180) 385; A-G Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 118) 646; Ugo v. Obiekwe & Anor (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 99) 566.

— N.S. Ngwuta, JSC. Odogwu v State (2013) – SC.122/2009

GROUNDS MUST BE FROM RATIO DECIDENDI

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