STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

GROUNDS OF APPEAL DISMISSED WHERE NO ISSUE DRAWN

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Indeed, there is no disputing the submission of the respondent that grounds 4 and 5 of the grounds of appeal are abandoned, no issues really having been drawn from those grounds. – Peter-Odili JSC. Chemiron v. Stabilini (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

grounds of appeal

THERE CAN BE NO ISSUE WHERE THERE IS NO GROUND OF APPEAL

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

GROUNDS OF APPEAL MUST ARISE FROM THE JUDGEMENT

In Bello v Aruwa (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.615) 454 it was held that grounds of appeal are not formulated in abstract. They must arise from the judgment in the same way as the issues arise from the grounds of appeal. And however meritorious a ground of appeal may be, it must be connected with the controversy between the parties at the trial court.

In Abiola v Abacha (1997) 6 NWLR (pt.509) 413 it was held that the grounds of appeal must stem from the decision of the court below.

Was this dictum helpful?

PRINCIPLES TO CONSIDER TO DETERMINE GROUND OF LAW OR FACT

For the purposes of elucidation however, I think I should re-state some of these principles.
1. The first and foremost is for one to examine thoroughly the grounds of appeal in the case concerned to see whether they reveal a misunderstanding by the lower court of the law, or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted.
2. Where a ground complains of a misunderstanding by the lower court of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, it is a ground of law.
3. Where a ground of appeal questions the evaluation of facts before the application of the law, it is a ground of mixed law and. fact.
4. A ground which raises a question of pure fact is certainly a ground of fact.
5. Where the lower court finds that particular events occurred although there is no admissible evidence before the court that the event did in fact occur, the ground is that of law.
6. Where admissible evidence has been led, the assessment of that evidence is entirely for that court. If there is a complaint about the assessment of the admissible evidence, the ground is that, of fact.
7. Where the lower court approached the construction of a legal term of art in a statute on the erroneous basis that the statutory wording bears its ordinary meaning, the ground is that of law.
8. Where the lower court or tribunal applying the law to the facts in a process which requires the skill of a trained lawyer, this is a question of law.
9. Where the lower court reaches a conclusion which cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts as found, the appeal court will assume that there has been a misconception of the law. This is a ground of law.
10. Where the conclusion of the lower court is one of possible resolutions but one which the appeal court would not have reached if siesed of the issue, that conclusion is not an error in law.
11. Where a trial court fails to apply the facts which it has found corrective to the circumstance of the case before it and there is an appeal to a court of appeal which alleges a misdirection in the exercise of the application by the trial court, the ground of appeal alleging the misdirection is a ground of law not of fact.
12. When the Court of Appeal finds such application to be wrong and decides to make its own findings such findings made by the court of appeal are issues of fact and not of law.
13. Where the appeal court interferes in such a case and there is a further appeal to a higher court of appeal on the application of the facts, the grounds of appeal alleging such misdirection by the lower court of appeal is a ground of law not of fact.
14. A ground of appeal which complains that the decision of the trial court is against evidence or weight of evidence or contains unresolved contradictions in the evidence of witnesses., it is purely a ground of fact (which requires leave for an appeal to a court of appeal or a further court of appeal).

– Niki Tobi, JSC. Calabar CC v. Ekpo (2008)

Was this dictum helpful?

TWO ISSUES CANNOT ARISE FROM A SINGLE GROUND OF APPEAL

‘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

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUE MUST HAVE A GROUND OF APPEAL SUPPORTING IT

Issues for determination numbers (1), (3), (4) and (6) are based on no grounds of appeal at all or upon grounds 4 and 5 which had already been struck out. This should not be. Counsel will do well to remember that issues for determination must arise from and relate to the grounds of appeal filed, and no more. Conversely, any issue for determination which has no ground of appeal to support it is worse than useless: See on this Osinupebi v Saibu & ors. (1982) 7 S.C. 104 at pp. 110-111; also Western Steel Works Limited & Anor. v. Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria (1987) 1N. W.L.R. (Part 49) 284, at p. 304.

— Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) – SC.207/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

USING BOTH SIMILAR GROUNDS FROM ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL AND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.