LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Grounds of Appeal – Sufficiency of Particulars – Ground Incorporating Error Complained of
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the ground of appeal is couched or framed in such a way as to incorporate or contain particulars of error or misdirection complained of and their nature, without necessarily setting them out as usual under a separate heading of particulars, it cannot be said that the appellant has failed to supply particulars of error or misdirection in such ground.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Umaru Atu Kalgo, JSC, in Global Transport Oceanico S.A. & Anor v. Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2001) NLC-128331998(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–B.
"Where the ground of appeal is couched or framed in such a way as to incorporate or contain particulars of error or misdirection complained of and their nature, without necessarily setting them out as usual under a separate heading of particulars, it cannot be said that the appellant has failed to supply particulars of error or misdirection in such ground."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A ground of appeal is not defective for lack of particulars if the ground itself incorporates the particulars of error or misdirection. The rigid requirement of a separate “particulars” heading is not absolute—substance over form applies. If the error complained of is clearly stated within the ground, the appellant has sufficiently supplied particulars. The purpose of particulars is to inform the respondent of the case to meet. That purpose is satisfied if the ground itself clearly discloses the error. The court should not strike out grounds for technical non-compliance with formatting if the substance is clear. The rule promotes justice over formalism.
CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE
None recorded.
