LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Dismissal of Appeal – Want of Diligent Prosecution – Court Not Obliged to Sift Valid Grounds from Invalid Ones in a Mixed Brief
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
This is a mixed grill served and I am of the firm view that it is not the business of the court to sift the chaff from the grains by performing a surgical operation on the appellant's brief to extract argument in respect of the valid grounds from the invalid ones as such an excising may involve the court in descending into the arena...and of necessity becloud its judgment. The duty of the court is that of an umpire whose duty in the interest of justice is to tender the rope and not to step into the brawl by excising argument on good grounds of appeal from bad ones.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Salami, JCA, in Horika Sawmill (Nigeria) Limited v. Mary Okojie Hoff (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 326) 252 at 262, cited with approval by Kalgo, JSC, in Korede v. Adedokun & Anor (2001) NLC-411996(SC) at p. 12; Paras C–E.
"This is a mixed grill served and I am of the firm view that it is not the business of the court to sift the chaff from the grains by performing a surgical operation on the appellant's brief to extract argument in respect of the valid grounds from the invalid ones as such an excising may involve the court in descending into the arena...and of necessity becloud its judgment. The duty of the court is that of an umpire whose duty in the interest of justice is to tender the rope and not to step into the brawl by excising argument on good grounds of appeal from bad ones."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The court is not obliged to sift valid grounds from invalid ones in a “mixed grill” brief containing both. Performing a surgical operation to extract good grounds from bad ones would involve the court descending into the arena and beclouding its judgment. The court’s role is as an umpire—to tend the rope, not to step into the brawl. If the appellant files a brief based on incompetent grounds, the court may dismiss the appeal or strike out the brief. The appellant bears the responsibility of presenting a competent appeal. The principle prevents the court from acting as counsel for the appellant. The appellant cannot expect the court to salvage a poorly prepared appeal.
