LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Grounds of Appeal — Composite Grounds — When Acceptable
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Composite grounds of appeal that embed particulars of errors within the ground are acceptable and will not be struck out as incompetent, as long as the allegations are clearly identifiable.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Adeleke v. Asani & Anor (2002) NLC-931997(SC) at p. 12; Paras A–B.
"It is of course not now in dispute supported by a long line of cases that composite grounds of appeal which included particulars of errors and/or misdirection may be filed and would not be struck down as incompetent. See *Okeke Amadi v. Okeke Okoli (1977) 7 S.C. 57 at 63; Mba Nta v. Anigbo (1972) 5 S.C. 156 at 164; Osawaru v. Ezeiruka (1978) 6-7 S.C 135; Okorie v. Udam (1960) SCNLR 326, (1960) 5 F.S.C. 162 at 164; Nsirim v Nsirim (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.138) 285, (1990) 2 NSCC 302 at 310* etc. In all the cases where their particulars of errors were embedded in the grounds of appeal, they are usually so couched that there is no difficulty in identifying the allegation which the appellant is making against the judgment of the court below."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Composite grounds of appeal (where particulars of error are embedded within the ground rather than listed separately) are acceptable. The court will not strike them out as incompetent if the error is clearly identifiable. The rule is supported by a long line of authorities. The purpose of particulars is to inform the respondent of the case to meet. That purpose is satisfied if the ground clearly discloses the error. The court focuses on substance, not form. The principle promotes access to justice. The appellant is not penalised for technical formatting. The court will examine whether the ground sufficiently identifies the error complained of.