CASE CITATION: MADAM ADUNOLA ADEJUMO & 2 ORS. v. MR. OLUDAYO OLAWAIYE (2014) 5-6 S.C. (Pt. II) 122
DATE OF JUDGMENT: FRIDAY 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2014
COURT: SUPREME COURT
SUIT: SC. 38/2004
CORAM:
- WALTER S. N. ONNOGHEN(Presided)
- SULAIMAN GALADIMA
- BODE RHODES-VIVOUR (Delivered the Leading Judgment)
- KUMAI B. AKA’AHS
- JOHN I. OKORO
ISSUE(S): NOTICE OF APPEAL – WHAT GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHOULD CONTAIN
CASE SYNTHESIS
An appeal is filed by the party who lost the case. He signifies his intention to appeal by filing a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal contains grounds of appeal. Issues for determination of the appeal court are formulated from the grounds of appeal which challenge the judgment from which the appeal emanates. Grounds of appeal are an attack on the judgment appealed against and arguments in a brief must be confined to the issues formulated for determination. Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal provide that appeals shall be heard on briefs to be filed by counsel. There are some fundamentals to be complied with for a brief to avoid being struck out. Such as a brief without issues for determination would be struckout for being incompetent. The rule against proliferation of issues is that not more than one issue can be formulated from a ground of appeal. That is to say an issue may arise from one or more grounds of appeal, but not a multiplicity of issues deriving from the same ground of appeal. See: Tanerewa Nig. Ltd. v. Plastifarm Ltd. (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.840) 369 CA; Nfor v. Ashaka Cement Co. Ltd. (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt.319) 228; State v. Oladimeji (2003) 7 S.C. 108.
Where no issue is formulated from a ground of appeal, such ground of appeal would be deemed abandoned by the Appellant. See: Ndume v. Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt.252) 131; Obasi v. Onwuka (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 369
Gone are the days when faulty briefs or failure to comply with the rules may result in the brief being struck out. See: N.B.N.L. Ltd. v. P.B. Olatunde & Co. Nig. Ltd. (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt.334) 512; Bamgboye v. Olusoga (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.444) 520.
The position of this court now, is that badly drafted brief should not be struck out, the reasoning is simple. Where the court is confronted with a badly drafted brief it should strive to understand the brief bearing in mind that it is the duty of the court to be seen at all times to do substantial justice to the parties. See: Tukur v. Government of Taraba State (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt.510) 549; Benue Cement Co. Plc. v. Sky Inspection & Anor. (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt.795) 86 CA; Chief T. Ekpemupolo & Ors. v. Godwin Edremoda & Ors. (2009) 3-4 S.C. 56
Notwithstanding the shift by this court to accommodate inelegantly drafted briefs, the fundamentals earlier alluded to must be complied with otherwise the brief would be struck out.
[mks_button size=”medium” title=”Click to Read Full Judgment” style=”squared” url=”https://www.lawbreed.com/site/search-for-case/?case_ref=591″ target=”_blank” bg_color=”#000000″ txt_color=”#FFFFFF” icon=”” icon_type=”” nofollow=”0″]
