CORAM

---

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdul-Azeez Waziri Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

FRIDAY IRUNKWO

APPELLANTS 

---

1. JOHNSON UKPERE (JNR)

2. MATTHEW UKPERE

3. DR. DANIEL UKPERE

4. PROFESSOR WILFRED UKPERE

5. FELIX UKPERE (For themselves and on behalf of the children of late Johnson Ukpere)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LAND LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, PROPERTY LAW

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case originated from the High Court of Delta State where the Respondents (as Claimants) sued for declaration of title to land, injunction, and damages. The disputed land was located along New Lagos/Asaba Expressway, Ohumere Quarters Agbor Obi, measuring 230ft by 90ft. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the Claimants (now Respondents), declaring their entitlement to statutory right of occupancy over the land, granting an injunction against the Defendant (now Appellant), and awarding damages. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed an appeal on 12/8/2020, raising six grounds of appeal and distilling two issues for determination, while the Respondents filed their brief on 23/5/2024 with three issues for determination.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was struck out for being incompetent.

2. The grounds of appeal were found not to arise from the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against.

3. The Court found that the Appellant failed to relate the issues to any of the six grounds of appeal formulated.

4. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the facts of the case as presented by both parties were properly and dispassionately evaluated by the trial Court ?

2. Whether having evaluated the facts of the case, the trial Court did not correctly apply the relevant law to warrant its judgment being set aside by the Appellate Court ?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FORMULATION OF ISSUES – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ISSUES AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL

---

“Appellant did not relate any of the two issues to any of the 6 grounds of the appeal he formulated in the Notice of Appeal. This is sad, as it burdens this Court with the troubles of reading the entire proceedings, Notice of Appeal, Records of Appeal, Brief of Argument, to determine which issue relates to which ground(s) of the appeal, to make any sense out of the Appellants arguments.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

RESPONDENT’S LIMITATION IN FORMULATING ISSUES – SCOPE OF RESPONDENT’S ISSUES

---

“The Respondent’s Counsel erred greatly by distilling three (3) issues for the determination of the appeal, after the Appellants had donated only two (2) issues for determination of appeal from their two grounds of appeal, serially. We have stated in several judicial decisions that a Respondent should not and cannot distill more issues for determination of appeal than the Appellant, except where they (Respondent) had filed a cross-appeal or a Respondent’s notice, with ground(s) to accommodate its extra issue(s).” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

FORMULATION OF ISSUES – RELATIONSHIP WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL

---

“I think it is now well understood in the appellate Courts that the formulation of issues for determination in the appeal must be consistent and fall within the scope of the grounds of appeal filed. The issues cannot be formulated to be wider than the grounds of appeal from which they derive their existence.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

ESSENCE OF FORMULATING ISSUES – PURPOSE AND SCOPE

---

“The essence of formulation of issues is to narrow the relevant points in issue. Since the issues must arise from grounds of appeal, they are meant to encompass all the grounds of appeal, thus a single issue should contain the points raised in one or more grounds of appeal.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

RESPONDENT’S LIMITATIONS IN APPEAL – SCOPE OF ISSUES WITHOUT CROSS-APPEAL

---

“We have stated, several times, that a Respondent cannot formulate an issue for determination of appeal outside the confines of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF IN APPEALS – APPELLANT’S DUTY TO ESTABLISH ERROR

---

“The combined effect of Sections 131 and 132 of the same Evidence Act, by way of analogy, is that the person who will lose a judgment, carries the burden of showing that the judgment appealed is wrong. That is: he who asserts that there was an error in the judgment he complains of has the burden of showing or establishing in what respects the judgment he complains of was erroneously decided.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

GROUNDS OF APPEAL – RELATIONSHIP WITH JUDGMENT

---

“a ground of appeal (and issues for determination of appeal) must be founded on the judgment appealed against, flowing from the ratio decidendi of that decision, to be valid.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

USEFULNESS OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – RELATIONSHIP WITH RATIO DECIDENDI

---

“To be useful in an appeal, an issue for determination canvassed must relate to the facts or law as decided by the Court, whose decision is appealed against and must attack the ratio decidendi.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

NECESSITY OF RELATING ISSUES TO JUDGMENT – REQUIREMENT FOR VALID APPEAL

---

“This point seems to have enjoyed some notoriety in the law governing appellate proceedings, that the grounds of appeal and/or issues for determination of appeal, must relate to and flow or derive from the judgment appealed against, touching on the ratio decidendi or live issue(s) in the judgment.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

SELF-DEFEATING ISSUES – EFFECT ON APPEAL

---

“I think this issue (and ground one of the appeal), by the admission of Appellant’s Counsel, is self defeating, as the same does not flow from the judgment appealed against and/or does not form the basis of the decision of the trial Court, dismissing the suit of the Applicant (Appellant).” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

ACADEMIC ISSUES – EFFECT ON APPEAL

---

“It is therefore a mere academic issue that enures no benefit to the Appellant, or any party. The trial Court had considered the Application on the merit (not on the basis of the Preliminary Objection by Respondent), when it held that Applicant had failed to prove his claim.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

RATIO DECIDENDI – MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE

---

“‘ratio decidendi’ as: ‘the reason for deciding’ or reasoning principle or ground upon which a case is decided; the legal principle formulated by the Court, which is necessary in the determination of the issue raised in the case, in other words, the binding part of the decision is its ratio decidendi, as against the remaining parts of the judgment, which merely constitute obita dicta.” – Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA

 

---

INCOMPETENT APPEAL – CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO RELATE ISSUES TO RATIO DECIDENDI

---

“Apart from the fact that the appellant did not tie the issues to the grounds of appeal, the grounds of appeal clearly do not arise from the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against.” – Per James Gambo Abundaga, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act, 2011

3. Court of Appeal Rules

4. Urban and Regional Planning Law of Delta State

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT