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
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
The primary purpose of the requirement that counsel should indicate from which of the grounds of an appeal issues raised in their brief of argument are derived, is to narrow and specifically identify the grounds from which such issues were distilled so as to readily show if they are valid and competent issues derived from competent grounds of the appeal. With the clear and express indication of the grounds of the appeal from which the two (2) issues raised in the Appellant’s brief, are distilled, the issues cannot reasonably be said to have been formulated from the other grounds not indicated in the issues. Beyond argument, the law still remains that grounds of appeal from which no issue was distilled or formulated (or indicated to have been distilled) are deemed abandoned.
– Garba, JCA. Dunlop v. Gaslink (2018)
Actually, one is at sea where this issue was lifted or distilled from as it does not have any relationship with any of the grounds of Appeal. It is trite that an issue for determination must flow from the ground of Appeal filed. Where an issue for determination in an appeal is not related to or based on ground of appeal filed, it is incompetent, valueless and must be ignored by the Court. See Akese v. Government Oyo State (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 634) Page 53, Madukolum v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR Page 34. Omo v. JSC Delta State (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 682) page 444.
— P.O. Elechi, JCA. Onoeyo v UBN (2014) – CA/C/66/2007
Where the complaint on a ground of law is clear and succinct, particulars may equate to repetition which is undesirable. Substantial justice must now have pre-eminence over technicality. See: Odoniyi v. Oyeleke (2001) SC 194 at 198; Nwosu v. Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 688) 717.
— Fabiyi, JSC. Best Ltd. v. Blackwood Hodge (2011) – SC
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 settled law that issues for determination must be distilled from grounds of appeal which ground(s) must attack the ratio decidendi of the judgment not anything said by the way, or obiter dicta or be formulated in vacuo , as issue 5 in the instant case. – Onnoghen JSC. Chami v. UBA (2010)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry