MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON POWER OF APPELLATE COURT TO FORMULATE OR RE-FORMULATE ISSUES FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The appellate court has the discretion to re-formulate issues or formulate issues from the grounds of appeal to facilitate proper adjudication.
[Ishola v. Folorunso (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1210) 169; Kayode v. State (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 199; Shema v. F.R.N. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1624) 337; Ukpong v. State (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1667) 1; Okonkwo v. Ezeaku (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1718) 477 referred to.]
(P. 233, paras. B-C)
YAKUBU V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 233
ON PURPOSE OF FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Issues for determination are an important part of a brief of argument and their purpose is to enable the parties narrow the issues in controversy in the grounds of appeal filed.
The characteristics of a well-drafted issue for determination in a brief of argument are precision, brevity, accuracy and clarity.
Therefore, to be useful in an appeal, an issue for determination must be comprehensible and make for easy understanding of the matter sought to be contended thereunder.
In the instant case, the appellant’s sole issue for determination was vague and incomprehensible. It lacked all the necessary qualities and was liable to be struck out.
[Ogbuinyinya v. Okudo (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 551; Uwaifo v. Uwaifo (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 479; Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 695 referred to.]
(P. 255, paras. D-G)
C.O.P. V. ABDULLAHI (2024) 8 NWLR (PT. 1940) 227 SC
ON PURPOSE OF FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The purpose of raising issues for determination in an appeal is to identify what is in issue in the complaints against specified and identified portions of the judgment appealed against in the grounds of appeal. Just as the grounds of appeal from which they are raised, the issues for determination must raise questions concerning the particular portion of the judgment complained against in the ground or grounds of appeal so as to enable the determination of the real questions in controversy in the grounds of appeal. (P. 243, paras. G-H).
C.O.P. V. ABDULLAHI (2024) 8 NWLR (PT. 1940) 227 SC
ON HOW TO COUCH ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Since issues for determination emanate from the grounds of the appeal, they must be couched in a manner to state accurately, clearly, and with brevity, the core issues in controversy in the complaints in the grounds of appeal. Where an issue for determination is not couched in a manner as to narrow it to the complaints in any grounds of the appeal about the specific portion of the judgment appealed against, it does not qualify as an issue for determination and would not be valid for consideration. This is because the determination of an appeal is restricted to the portion of the judgment appealed against in the grounds for the appeal. The entire case from which an appeal arises is not open for determination at large.
STATE V. SABAGI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 295
ON DUTY ON LOWER COURT TO RESOLVE ALL ISSUES SUBMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION AND RATIONALE THEREFOR
It is incumbent on a lower court in the judicial hierarchy to resolve all the issues for determination raised or submitted by the parties before it for adjudication and not select one or some of the issues and decide the case thereon. The rationale for this position is so that if it turns out on a further challenge that its findings on the selected issue or issues are wrong, the higher court will have the benefit of its opinion on the other issues and not be faced with a dilemma of whether to remit the case to the lower court for determination of the other issues it neglected to resolve or to take over the functions of the lower court and determine the outstanding issues on the merits. This principle remains true even where the issue so first resolved by the lower court is on jurisdiction, it must still go further to resolve the other issues raised and canvassed by the parties. In the instant case, subsequently to the nullification of the proceedings, the Court of Appeal proceeded to consider the appeal on the merits and found that the appellant did not lead sufficient, cogent and credible evidence to prove the charge against the respondent. [Brawal Shipping Nig. Ltd. v. F.I. Onwadike Co. Ltd. (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 678) 387; Honeywell Flour Mills v. Ecobank Nigeria Ltd. (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt.1655) 35; Onwe v. State (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 217; Long term Global Capital Ltd. v. Stanbic IBTC Bank (No. 1) (2022) 14NWLR (Pt. 1851) 505; Arewa Paper Converters Ltd. v. N.D.I.C. ( Nigeria Universal Trust Bank Ltd) (2006)15 NWLR (Pt.1002) 404; Stowe v. Ben-Stowe (2012)9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 450; National Union of Road Transport Workers v. Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1307)170; Saki v. A.P.C. (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1706) 515referred to.] (P. 338, paras. B-H).