May 4, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 23126 In the Court of Appeal HOLDEN AT ABUJA Fri Mar 27, 2015 Suit Number: CA/A/EPT/41/2015 CORAM PARTIES DR. NUHU SHEM ZAGBAYI APPELLANTS […]
CORAM
PARTIES
DR. NUHU SHEM ZAGBAYI APPELLANTS
1 BARR. DAVID UMARU
2.ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)
3.PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
4.INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
5. THE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER (REC) NIGER STATE AND 389 OTHERS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 5th Respondent (INEC) conducted a bye-election into the office of Senator for Niger East Senatorial District of Niger State, wherein the PDP candidate was declared the winner by INEC. Dissatisfied with the 5th Respondent’s decision, the APC candidate in the election approached the Election Tribunal as the 1st Petitioner, while the PDP candidate was the 1st Respondent. At the end of proceedings at the Tribunal, the Tribunal nullified the results in all the polling units affected by non- compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and then nullified the return of the Respondent on the ground that he did not win the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election. Being dissatisfied, the Respondent, now Appellant on appeal, filed a Notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Struck Out, Preliminary Objection Allowed
ISSUES
None
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES / GROUNDS OF APPEAL- ARGUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE BASED ON ISSUES DISTILLED AND NOT ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“On proliferation of issues, it is clear that when the filing of briefs was initially introduced and arguments are required to be based on issues distilled and not on the grounds of appeal, the courts were lenient. However, the practice has taken firm root and the law has been firmly settled, such that contraventions are rewarded by the striking out of the issues.”
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- ISSUE MAY BE DISTILLED FROM ONE GROUND OF APPEAL OR MORE -PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IS NOT ALLOWED
“The law is that an issue may be distilled from one ground of appeal or more. However, if more than one issue is formulated from one ground of appeal or a set of grounds of appeal, then it amounts to proliferation and it is not allowed. The law as enunciated by Salami JCA as he then was, In M. Osekoni Vs. UTC Nig Plc (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt.982) 283 at 298 is extant. He held
“……..Whereas an issue is permitted to be distilled from a ground or more grounds of appeal, it is not possible to formulate two or more issues from one ground of appeal or even formulate issues from a set of grounds of appeal and another issue from the same set of grounds of appeal as in this appeal. 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 another way, two issues are not to be formulated from a ground of appeal. Two issues for determination cannot be distilled from one ground of appeal; otherwise both the issues and the grounds of appeal will be liable to be struck out as being incompetent”
EFFECT OF PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – WHEN ISSUES ARE PROLIFERATED, THEY ARE INCOMPETENT AND SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CONSIDERING THEM IS A WORTHLESS ACADEMIC EXERCISE
“The appellant should have a clear cut idea about the basis of his displeasure with a judgment, translate that into the grounds of appeal and identify the issues from the grounds of appeal, upon which he will proffer his arguments. This will make things easier and allow the opponent to meet the arguments head on. But when issues are proliferated, the dust is most likely to cover faces and lead to confusion. When issues are proliferated, they are incompetent and should be struck out because considering them is a “worthless academic exercise” – See Drexel Energy And Natural Resources Ltd & Ors Vs- Trans International Bank Ltd & Ors (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388 at 424 B where the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu JSC held that: –
“…if an issue is incompetent, it should be struck out as to do otherwise and give consideration to the issue, is to embark on a worthless academic exercise”
ISSUES / GROUNDS OF APPEAL- ARGUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE BASED ON ISSUES DISTILLED AND NOT ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“On proliferation of issues, it is clear that when the filing of briefs was initially introduced and arguments are required to be based on issues distilled and not on the grounds of appeal, the courts were lenient. However, the practice has taken firm root and the law has been firmly settled, such that contraventions are rewarded by the striking out of the issues.”
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- ISSUE MAY BE DISTILLED FROM ONE GROUND OF APPEAL OR MORE -PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IS NOT ALLOWED
“The law is that an issue may be distilled from one ground of appeal or more. However, if more than one issue is formulated from one ground of appeal or a set of grounds of appeal, then it amounts to proliferation and it is not allowed. The law as enunciated by Salami JCA as he then was, In M. Osekoni Vs. UTC Nig Plc (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt.982) 283 at 298 is extant. He held
“……..Whereas an issue is permitted to be distilled from a ground or more grounds of appeal, it is not possible to formulate two or more issues from one ground of appeal or even formulate issues from a set of grounds of appeal and another issue from the same set of grounds of appeal as in this appeal. 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 another way, two issues are not to be formulated from a ground of appeal. Two issues for determination cannot be distilled from one ground of appeal; otherwise both the issues and the grounds of appeal will be liable to be struck out as being incompetent”
EFFECT OF PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – WHEN ISSUES ARE PROLIFERATED, THEY ARE INCOMPETENT AND SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CONSIDERING THEM IS A WORTHLESS ACADEMIC EXERCISE
“The appellant should have a clear cut idea about the basis of his displeasure with a judgment, translate that into the grounds of appeal and identify the issues from the grounds of appeal, upon which he will proffer his arguments. This will make things easier and allow the opponent to meet the arguments head on. But when issues are proliferated, the dust is most likely to cover faces and lead to confusion. When issues are proliferated, they are incompetent and should be struck out because considering them is a “worthless academic exercise” – See Drexel Energy And Natural Resources Ltd & Ors Vs- Trans International Bank Ltd & Ors (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388 at 424 B where the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu JSC held that: –
“…if an issue is incompetent, it should be struck out as to do otherwise and give consideration to the issue, is to embark on a worthless academic exercise”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).|Court of Appeal Rules 2011|Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)|