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
SHARE ON
Equity follows the law and does always look at the substance and not the form. The 3rd Respondent on this point of his preliminary objection appears to be blighted by the form, and not the substance. Upon my careful perusal of grounds 1, 2, 3 & 6 of the Amended Notice of Appeal they appear to be substantially the replication of grounds 1, 2 & 3 of the original notice of appeal, grounds 4 in the original notice of appeal and the amended notice of appeal and the amended notice of appeal are identical. Similarly, ground 5 in the original notice of appeal was replicated, in ground 5 of the amended notice of appeal. The two grounds are identical. I do not, therefore, think that the respondents in the appeal have been misled, embarrassed or in any way prejudged by the Appellants merely indicating that their issue 1 has been formulated from original grounds 1, 2 & 3 as well as grounds 1, 2, 3 & 6 in the Amended Notice of Appeal. The Respondents similarly are not misled and prejudiced by the Appellants indicating that issues 2 & 3 are issues the subject of identical grounds 4 & 5 in both the original notice of appeal and the Amended Notice of Appeal respectively. Therefore, using blue pencil rule to discountenance, references, in the Appellants’ issues for determination of the appeal in their brief, to grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 in the original notice of appeal filed on 9th August, 2016 will, in the peculiar facts of this case, meet the ends of substantial justice. Courts these days strive to doing substantial justice as they now turn away from arcane technicality.
— Ejembi Eko, JSC. Oboh & Anor v. NFL (SC.841/2016, January 28, 2022)
A ground of appeal must arise from the judgment appealed against and must be an attack on a ratio decidendi of the judgment and not an obiter dictum. – Ekanem JCA. C.O.P. v. Doolor (2020) – CA/MK/182/2017
In plethora of decided cases, a ground of appeal that postulates that the decision of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence or cannot be supported by the weight of evidence is christened an Omnibus Ground. It also implies that there is no evidence which if accepted would support the finding of the trial Court.
— M.N. Oniyangi, JCA. Jos Met. Dev. v. Umealakei (2020) – CA/J/481/2019
In Enterprise Bank Ltd. v. Deaconess F. Bose Aroso & 5 ors. Suit No.166/2003 judgment delivered on the 12th of April, 2013: “Before making the distinction between grounds of law, mixed law and facts, and facts, first of all read carefully the ground of appeal and its particulars to understand thoroughly the substance of the complaint. Find out if the ground of appeal contests facts. If it does it can only be a ground of facts or mixed law and facts. Once facts are not in dispute. That is to say facts are settled, a ground of appeal can never be on facts or mixed law and facts. The ground of appeal can only complain of the wrong application of the law to settled facts and that is a ground of law. It is very easy to identify a ground of appeal on facts.”
The right of appellant to appeal as of right on the 4 grounds complaining on facts is secured by Section 233 (2) (d) of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal having affirmed his death sentence.
— E. Eko, JSC. Lawali v State (2019) – SC.272/2017
It is trite law that one issue can contain many consistent grounds of appeal, but a single ground of appeal cannot give rise to two or more issues.
– Denton West JCA. Salaja v. Salaja (2013)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry