CORAM

---

MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KUD1RAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE- EKUN     JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SYLVESTER UMARU ONU,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

MRS. PATIENCE OMAGBEMI APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant/plaintiff was a staff of the respondent/defendant before her retrenchment, she contended that based upon the LIFO principle the respondent was bound to re-employ her in the advert of a vacancy and sued for failure to do so. The Trial Court and Court of Appeal both dismissed her case. Being dissatisfied she has appealed to this Court. ?

---

HELD

---

The result is that the appeal itself be and is accordingly struck out with costs assessed at N1,000 to the respondent. ?

---

ISSUES

---

“Whether Exhibit 3 operated to put an end to plaintiff’s rights under Exhibit I and/or under the earlier compromise agreement arising from plaintiff’s forbearance to sue in return for defendant’s promise to recall.” ?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COMPETENT ISSUES MUST BE RELATED TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL

---

“It is now settled that any issue or issues for determination formulated, in either the brief of argument of the appellant or the respondent, in any case, must be based on an and he pertinent to the ground or grounds of appeal that give life to the appeal. If the issue or issues do not conform with the grounds of appeal, then they cannot stand for being irrelevant. It follows, therefore, that any argument in the brief based on the faulty issue for determination is equally irrelevant to the appeal”. Per UWAIS JSC

---

COMPETENT ISSUES MUST BE RELATED TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL

---

“A close look and careful scrutiny of the lone issue formulated vis-à-vis each of grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all of which are set out above, clearly indicates that the lone issue is neither related to any or distilled from each or all of these grounds. Where such is the case the issue is unarguable and is a fortiori incompetent and ought therefore to be struck out”. Per ONU JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Bennett Ifediorah & 4 Ors. v. Ben Ume & Ors. (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.74) 5 at page 16; 2. Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 718 at 733; 3. National Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Nigerian External Telecommunications Limited; (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.31) 667 4. Omonuwa v. Oshodin (1985) 2 S.C. 1 at page 8; (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.10) 924.?

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

The Labour Law, 1974, Cap. 198

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

---