LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Grounds of Appeal — Validity of Ground Alleging Both Misdirection and Error in Law — Test of Preciseness and Clarity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
What is important in a ground of appeal is whether it shows clearly what is complained of as error in law and what is complained of as misdirection. A ground is not incompetent merely because it alleges both misdirection and error in law, as long as the other side is not left in doubt about the complaint.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Aderounmu v. Olowu (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 652) 253 at 265–266, quoted with approval by Edozie, JSC, in Okotie-Eboh v. Manager & Ors (2004) NLC-1972003(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras B–D.
"In my opinion, what is important in a ground of appeal, and the test the court should apply, is whether or not the impugned ground shows clearly what is complained of as error in law and what is complained of as misdirection, or, as the case may be, error of fact. … What makes a ground incompetent is not whether it is framed as an error and a misdirection but whether by so stating it, the other side is left in doubt and without adequate information as to what the complaint of the appellant actually is."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A ground of appeal may properly allege both misdirection and error in law. The principle applies to appellate practice. The test is whether the complaint is clear and not misleading. The rule promotes substance over form. The court will not strike out a ground for technical labelling if the complaint is clear. The principle is well-established.
