LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Grounds of Appeal – Competency – Grounds Must Arise from Court Below
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In her purported appeal before this court the appellant attempted to raise the issues of lack of witness to the sale, lack of handing over of the two rooms sold and lack of authority on the part of Hajiya Hurairat... These are the particulars raised under ground 1 which in my view do not flow from it. Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal do not arise from the Court of Appeal judgment. Most of the particulars provided in support do not also flow from such grounds. Also the issues raised in the appellant's brief do not flow from the incompetent grounds of appeal. It is my view that all the grounds of appeal can be said to be raising matters that were not raised and canvassed in the Court of Appeal.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Salami v. Mohammed & Anor (2000) NLC-2191994(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras D–A.
"In her purported appeal before this court the appellant attempted to raise the issues of lack of witness to the sale, lack of handing over of the two rooms sold and lack of authority on the part of Hajiya Hurairat... These are the particulars raised under ground 1 which in my view do not flow from it. Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal do not arise from the Court of Appeal judgment. Most of the particulars provided in support do not also flow from such grounds. Also the issues raised in the appellant's brief do not flow from the incompetent grounds of appeal. It is my view that all the grounds of appeal can be said to be raising matters that were not raised and canvassed in the Court of Appeal."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Grounds of appeal must arise from the decision of the court below. If they raise matters not canvassed or decided in the lower court, they are incompetent. Particulars must flow from the grounds they support. Similarly, issues in the brief must flow from competent grounds. This ensures that appellate review is confined to decisions actually made below. Allowing grounds that raise new matters undermines the appellate process and denies the lower court the opportunity to address issues. Such grounds are liable to be struck out.