BAGUDU V BALKISU [2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 317 S.C
ON MEANING AND NATURE OF ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION AND PRINCIPLES GUIDING ITS FORMULATION
An issue for determination is a point in dispute between two or more parties which was resolved by a lower court that should be resubmitted in the appellate court where a party is not satisfied with the outcome of the resolution in the lower court. It is not every fact in dispute or indeed every ground of appeal that raises an issue for determination. The definitive test is whether the legal consequences of that ground or fact as framed, if decided in favour of the appellant, will result in a verdict in his favour. An issue that is not necessary for determination, or which even if determined in favour of a party, may not end the controversy ought not to be formulated for determination on appeal for it may serve no purpose even if the complaint is upheld in favour of the appellant. When the determination of an issue in favour of the party who raised it will not affect the result of an appeal, the issue is of no value. [bori v. Agbi (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 78; Ehimare v. Emhonyon (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 177; Okereke v. Nwankwo (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 592 referred to.] (P. 358, paras. E-H)
BAGUDU V BALKISU [2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 317 S.C
ON MEANING AND NATURE OF ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION AND PRINCIPLES GUIDING ITS FORMULATION
An issue for determination in an appeal is a combination of facts and circumstances including the law applicable thereto which is so crucial that if it is decided one way or the other will affect the fate of the appeal. It is a point which is so critical that if it is decided in favour of a party, such a party is entitled to win the appeal. An issue raised for determination in an appellate court should be material; it must be such a proposition of law or fact or both so cogent, weighty, and compelling that a decision on it in favour of a party to the appeal will entitle him to the judgment of the court. (Okoye V. N.C. & F.C. Lid. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501; G. Chitex Industries Ltd. v. Oceanic Bank Int. (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 392; Ali v. Osakwe (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1245) 68; Nadabo v. Dabai (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1245) 155; Ugo v. Obiekwe (1980) All NLR 566; Kalu v. Odili (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 130; Ezekwesili v. Agbapuonwu (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 825) 337 referred to.] (P. 358, paras. A-E)
BAGUDU V. KYAUTA (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 379 S.C
ON DUTY ON COURT TO DETERMINE ALL ISSUES VALIDLY RAISED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE IT AND EXCEPTION THERETO
A court is bound to determine all issues validly raised by the parties before it. This principle is, however, a general one, amendable to exceptions. One such exception is where the issue left undetermined has been subsumed in other issues already determined by the court. So, the Court of Appeal, though an intermediate appellate court, will be exempted from determining afresh an issue which it has determined in a sister appeal, involving the same parties/issues and arising from the same judgment of the trial court. Under such circumstances, such undetermined issue would be considered subsumed in the issues determined and disposed of in the sister appeal. [4.P.C. v. A.I.E.S.C. (2022) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1845) 411 referred to.] (P. 399, paras. D-H)
BAGUDU V. KYAUTA (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 379 S.C
ON WHETHER COURT OF APPEAL MUST DETERMINE AFRESH ISSUE DETERMINED IN SISTER APPEAL
Where an issue for determination arises in two sister appeals, predicated on the same or very similar facts, and the issue is resolved and determined in one of the appeals, there is no need for the appellate court to resolve and determine the issue again in the sister appeal. So, the Court of Appeal, though an intermediate appellate court, will be exempted from determining afresh an issue which it has determined in a sister appeal, involving the same parties/issues and arising from the same judgment of the trial court. Under such circumstances, such undetermined issue would be considered subsumed in the issues determined and disposed of in the sister appeal. The rationale for this position of the law is that the further consideration and resolution of the issue for determination in the sister appeal will only be superfluous as the court cannot come to a contrary or contradictory decision on the same issue for determination in the sister appeal. In this case, the core issue that arose for determination in the appellant’s appeal at the Court of Appeal was considered and unanimously determined against him on the merits by the Court of Appeal in its judgment in his other appeal against the judgment in the consolidated suit. [4.P.C. v. A.I.E.S.C. (2022) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1845) 411; Ayakpo v. Dickson (2023) LPELR 60023; P.D.P. v. Johnson (2023) LPELR 61390; Lar v. Zuma Steel West Africa Ltd. (2024) LPELR 62260; Emebo v. Zuma Steel West Africa Ltd. (2024) LPELR 62264; Madumere v. Gov., Imo State (2024) LPELR 62825 referred to.) (Pp. 399-400, paras. B-E)
BAGUDU V. KYAUTA (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 379 S.C
ON WHETHER FAILURE OF COURT TO DETERMINE SUPERFLUOUS ISSUE AMOUNTS TO BREACH OF FAIR HEARING
A court’s failure to consider an issue which has become superfluous cannot amount to a breach of fair hearing of a party as pronouncing on it is an exercise in futility and failure to do so cannot have any effect on the decision of the court. In this case, the appellant was afforded the right to fair hearing in the determination of the earlier appeal on the same issues and subject matter to both appeals to factually make repeating the said determination in the later appeal, unnecessary. Thus, the failure of the Court of Appeal to resolve and determine the issues raised for determination in the appeal on the merits did not breach the right of the appellant to fair hearing. Accordingly, the sole issue for determination in this appeal is resolved against the appellant. [Agbakoba v. I.N.E.C. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489; I.N.E.C. v. Atuma (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 494 referred.] (Pp. 400, paras. E-H; 402, paras. A-C)
BAGUDU V. KYAUTA (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 379 S.C
ON PROPER SUBSEQUENT DECISION BY COURT OF APPEAL IN SISTER APPEALS RAISING SAME ISSUES AFTER DECIDING ONE
Where issues for determination based on the same or very similar facts arise in sister appeals, as in this case, the proper step for the Court of Appeal after deciding one of the appeals, is to pronounce on the merits of the sister appeal by adopting and transporting therein its reasoning and conclusions reached on the issues for determination in the other appeal, and not to strike out the other appeal. In this case, the Court of Appeal should not have struck out the appellant’s appeal. (Pp. 399-401, paras. B-B)
BAGUDU V. KYAUTA (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 379 S.C
ON NEED FOR ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION FORMULATED BY RESPONDENT TO ARISE FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Where a respondent does not file a cross appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal and/or a respondent’s notice to affirm the judgment on other grounds, it is incumbent on the respondent to formulate his issues for determination in the appeal from the grounds of appeal of the appellant. In other words, the issue for determination and the arguments canvassed thereunder must be predicated upon and be directed at the ratio decidendi of the decision of the court appealed against. [Ameh v. Ameh (2023) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1882) 1; Sembcorp Engineering (Pte) Ltd. v. IPCO (W.A.) Holdings Ltd. (2024) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1968) 531; Archianga v. A.-G., Akwa Ibom State (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1454) 1; Omoniyi v. Alabi (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 572; Olawoye v. State (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1867) 1; Ironbar v. Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd. (2024) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1952) 257 referred to.] (Pp. 294-295, paras. F-A)
BAGUDU V. KYAUTA (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 379 S.C
ON EFFECT AND TREATMENT OF ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION WHICH DOES NOT ARISE FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Where an issue for determination is not distilled from the grounds of appeal of the appellant and does not arise from and/or is not directed at the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against, it is incompetent and liable to be struck out. In this case, the issue for determination formulated by the 1st – 7th respondents does not arise from the grounds of appeal of the appellant and has no correlation to the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against. It is incompetent and it is struck out along with the arguments canvassed thereon. [Atanda v. Comm., Land and Housing, Kwara State (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 32; Tabansi v. Tabansi (2018) 18 NWLR (Pt.1651) 279; Ugwu v. State (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746)1 referred to.] (P. 395, paras. A-B)
C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 1
ON NEED FOR ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION TO BE FORMULATED FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST RATIO DECIDENDI OF LOWER COURT’S DECISION
An issue for determination in an appeal and the arguments canvassed under it must be predicated upon and be directed at the ratio decidendi of the decision of the court appealed against.
Where an issue for determination does not arise from and or is not directed at the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against, it is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
In this case, the Court of Appeal did not make a finding on the status of the appellant, whether it is a public officer or not, in resolving the issue of failure to obtain the fiat of the Attorney General of the Federation. Therefore, the first issue for determination formulated by the 1st respondent was not related to the findings made by the Court of Appeal in its judgment. The issue for determination was incompetent and deserved to be struck out along with the arguments canvassed on it.
[Archianga v. A.-G., Akwa Ibom State (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1454) 1; Omoniyi v. Alabi (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 572; Olawoye v. State (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1867) 1; Ironbar v. Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd. (2024) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1952) 275; Atanda v. Comm., Land and Housing, Kwara State (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 32; Tabansi v. Tabansi (2018) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1651) 279; Ugwu v. State (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 76-77, paras. G-D)
C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 1
ON HOW AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION WITHOUT VALUE IS TREATED
The Supreme Court has no business determining an issue for determination that is of no value.
In this case, all arguments on the third issue for determination became futile on the striking out of the first and second issues for determination together with the arguments canvassed under them.
The third issue for determination was thus of no value in the appeal.
[Okereke v. Nwankwo (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 592; British American Tobacco Company Ltd. v. A.-G., Oyo State (2015) LPELR-41849 referred to.] (P. 81, paras. B-F)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON TREATMENT OF ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION NOT RELATED TO A GROUND OF APPEAL OR GROUND OF APPEAL FROM WHICH NO ISSUE IS FORMULATED
Issues for determination are distilled from the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, any issue that cannot be traced to a specific ground of appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out. Likewise, any ground of appeal from which no issue has been formulated, is deemed abandoned, and shall be struck out. In the instant case, since no issue was distilled from ground 4 of the notice of appeal, same was therefore struck out for being abandoned.
[P.D.P. v. I.N.E.C. (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt.1437) 525; Itok v. Udoyo (2021) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1765) 49; Adelekan v. Eculine NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 33 referred to.]
(P. 358, paras. E-G)
MUHAMMAD V. UMARU (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 3012
ON EFFECT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN APPEAL UNDER ISLAMIC LAW
Under Islamic Law, a court is duly accorded with an unfettered discretion to consider facts and circumstances of the case before it and do justice to the respective parties devoid of technicalities. The courts look at the substance rather than the form.
Thus, a court under Islamic Law is not restricted to the issues raised by the parties for determination in the case or appeal, provided there are sufficient materials upon which a just decision can be reached by the court. The grounds of appeal or issues raised before a court under Islamic Law need not to be framed in a technical manner or legal phraseology.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeal critically examined the grounds of appeal before the Sharia Court of Appeal and found that the issue of Nukool was raised and the Sharia Court of Appeal made a pronouncement in it and that the issue of Nukool was therefore not a fresh issue that required leave before it could be raised. The Supreme Court found itself in complete alignment with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, as stated above.
(P. 318, paras. B-F)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON TREATMENT OF ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION UPON WHICH NO ARGUMENT IS CANVASSED
Any issue for determination on which no argument is canvassed is deemed abandoned.
In the instant case, it was clear that no argument was canvassed in respect of the fourth issue for determination formulated by the appellant. Therefore, the issue was deemed abandoned and accordingly struck out.
[Ehorlor v. Osayande (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 52S4; Buhari v. Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 587 referred to.]
(P. 616, paras. E-F)
OPENE V. N.J.C. (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 101
ON NEED FOR ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION TO BE FORMULATED FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL DERIVED FROM RATIO DECIDENDI OF DECISION APPEALED AGAINST
Issues for determination of an appeal must be formulated from grounds of appeal which in turn must also be derived from ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against. In other words, grounds of appeal and issues which are alien to the judgment appealed against are incompetent and ought to be struck out. In the instant case, none of the three issues placed before the Court of Appeal for determination arose from the decision or ratio decidendi of the trial court. The issue adopted by the Court of Appeal did not arise from the judgment as the trial court. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to determine the appeal on issues not arising from the judgment. The appeal at the Court of Appeal and the judgment arising therefrom were liable to be set aside. Also, the appeal at the Court of Appeal being struck out, the appeal at the Supreme Court was liable to be struck out. [Eyigebe v. Iyaji (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1365) 407; Awuse v.Odili (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 874) 876) 494; Odife v. Aniemeka (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 251) 25; Ibigbami v. Mil. Gov., Ekiti State (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 863) 243referred to.] (P. 121, paras. C-H).
SEMBCORP ENG. PTE LTD. V. IPCO (WA) HOLDINGS LTD. (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 531
ON PRINCIPLES GUIDING FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY RESPONDENT
A respondent who neither filed a cross-appeal or a respondent’s notice is not entitled to formulate issues outside the grounds of appeal, which contain the complaints against the decision appealed against. For a respondent to be able to formulate an issue or issues outside the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, he must have filed a cross-appeal or a respondent’s notice. While a respondent is entitled to frame his own issues for determination which may be the same or different from those formulated for determination by the appellant, those issues must of necessity be distilled from and relate to the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. Where a respondent formulates issues that are not distillable from the grounds of appeal, the issues are outside the scope of the appeal, incompetent, and liable to be struck out.
AKINGBOLA V. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 343
ON WHAT IS ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION IN APPEAL
An issue for determination in an appeal is a combination of facts and circumstances including the law applicable thereto which is so crucial that if it is decided one way or the other will affect the fate of the appeal. It is a point which is so critical that if it is decided in favour of a party, such a party is entitled to win the appeal. [Okoye v. N.C. & F. Co. Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501; G. Chitex Ind. Ltd.v. Oceanic Bank Int. (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt.945) 392; Ali v. Osakwe (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1245)68; Nadabo v. Dabai (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1245) 155referred to.] (P. 403, paras. A-C).