Proliferation Of Issues: Examining Appellate Courts’ Attitude Towards Practice And Procedure

By A.A Taofeek

It is no longer a news that procedural aspect of law requires a long-standing experience to get oneself acquainted with the practice and procedure of a particular court. Thus, it becomes quite necessary for counsel(s) to study the know-how of the court in which he wants to appear. This know-how is popularly referred to, in legal parlance, as Rules of Court. Failure of the counsel(s) to abide by these rules will inevitably have adverse effects on his matter before the court.

One of these procedural aspects which oftentimes have a regrettable effect, is proliferation of issues for determination.

What do we mean by proliferation of issues?

Put simply, proliferation of issues means having more issues than the grounds of appeal. By this definition, it is obviously deduced that proliferation of issues arises mainly at the appellate courts where issue(s) for determination is/are always framed from grounds of appeal.

This form of unacceptable practice has, in plethora of cases, been frowned at by the appellate courts. However, the acceptable practice is that issues for determination should not outnumber grounds of appeal because issues are expected to be distilled from one or more grounds of appeal. In the case of Mozie v. Mbanalu [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 466 @ 490, Niki Tobi, JSC (as he then was) observed: “…The appellants formulated eight issues for determination, while the respondents formulated four issues. I will not reproduce the twelve issues here. I do not have such space. But I have enough space to ask what are eight issues doing in an appeal that has only five grounds of appeal? This court has condemned proliferation of issues. As a matter of procedure, issues should not outnumber grounds of appeal. This is because issues are framed from one or more grounds of appeal, preferably more than one ground of appeal. The reverse position is the practice and it is that grounds of appeal outnumber issues”.  (Emphasis mine)

Stationed on the above, it is safe to posit that an issue is permitted to be distilled from a ground or more grounds of appeal, but it is not permissible 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. It breeds a miasma of confusion and the court had no business to separate the wood from the trees in determining the issues so mixed together. See Ayo Fayose V. Independent Communication Network (2012) 19 WRN 146 at 168 -169 CA.

Having stated that, it is very germane to highlight the effect which proliferation of issues would have on the matter before the court. As a matter of procedure, the settled position of law is that both the issues and the ground of appeal will be liable to be struck out as being incompetent. This has been held in host of cases, see  Odoemena Nwaigwe & Ors. V. Nze Edwin Okere (2008) 46 WRN 1; Adekunle Teriba V. Ayoade Tiamiyu Adeyemo (2010) 4 SCNJ 59 at 67.

Similarly, the Court of Appeal; Per SAULAWA, J.C.A. (as he then was) in STEPHEN OGBEBOR & SONS SAWMILL LIMITED v. CHIEF JOHN OSAMEDE ADUN (2014) AELR 3658 (CA) reiterated that “… it is against the rules of the court for the Appellant, or any party for that matter, to formulate more issues more than the grounds upon which the appeal is predicated, what is notoriously known as proliferation of issues. It is a well settled principle of law, that issues must correspondingly be distilled from competent grounds of appeal. Where issues raised in an appeal are not distilled from, or covered by the grounds of appeal, they are liable to be discountenanced and struck out”. (Emphasis mine) Further see HOUSE OF REPS VS. SPDCN (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 213 @ 244;

Moreso, after being examined the consequences of proliferation of issues, one may be eager to know the fate of issue(s) not formulated from any ground of appeal. The answer is not far-fetched. The settled principle, as a matter of practice, is that any issue for determination not distilled from any of the grounds of appeal shall be of no effect. In other words, such issue has no leg on which to stand, it is considered incompetent and shall, therefore, be struck out. See the cases of Abba v. S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. 2013 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 86; Ndulue v. Ojiakor (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 311.

In conclusion, as widely believed that the joy of law is in practice, it is, however, pertinent to study the basics of the practice and procedure which make the practice so fun and interesting. Failure to do so might jeopardize a lot of human effort put in place by the counsel, expose him to unnecessary economic loss, waste of time, as well as untold hardship which could have been initially prevented.

A.A Taofeek is a student of Law at the prestigious Usman Dan Fodio University Sokoto. He can always be reached via; olamideajibade02@gmail.com || +2348085374513.