LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Grounds of Appeal — Court’s Reliance on Unpleaded Issue of Estoppel
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is an unnecessary exercise for an appellate court to devote considerable attention to an issue of estoppel that was not placed before the court by the parties.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Yesufu v. Gov. Edo State & Ors (2001) NLC-701996(SC) at p. 10; Paras A–C.
"I think the criticism of the appellant on the lead judgment of the court below... is well taken. Ogundare, JCA devoted a considerable length of his judgment to estoppel by conduct which was not the issue placed before the court. Although at the end he related estoppel to locus standi, I think it was a most unnecessary exercise."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An appellate court should not devote substantial attention to issues not raised by the parties. Deciding unpleaded issues is unnecessary and may be erroneous. The court should confine itself to issues properly placed before it. Even if the court eventually relates the unpleaded issue to a pleaded one, the exercise is generally unnecessary. The principle ensures that courts do not make cases for parties. The parties define the scope of the appeal. The court may raise jurisdictional issues suo motu, but not substantive defences like estoppel. The court should avoid unnecessary excursions into unpleaded matters. The rule promotes judicial efficiency and fairness.
