Whether an Error Complained of can be Sidestepped during an Appeal on the Ground of Inelegance -Saheed Afeez Ayinde – deemlawful

Whether an Error Complained of can be Sidestepped during an Appeal on the Ground of Inelegance –Saheed Afeez Ayinde – deemlawful

Verily, for the sustainability of An Appeal, there must be atleast a substantive error/fault in pronouncement of the lower court. In addition to this substantive, is the ability of the counsel’s elegance in projecting the Errors complained.

This in no doubt will captivate the heart of the court and at the same time add value to the said Error. However, what would be fate of a Substantive Error that lacked well projection inorder words, where the error complained of, is inelegant.

The court in this case
AWUSA V. NIGERIAN ARMY citation: LOR (4/5/2018)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

as per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE. J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): aptly noted below

The law is that once the error complained of is identified and properly oriented in the ground of Appeal, the fact that particulars to the said ground are argumentative, repetitive or narratives is not enough for an appellate Court to sidestep from doing justice.

See Best (Nig) Ltd.V. B.H. (Nig Ltd. (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 95 SC. and Omisore V. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205 at 257, where this Court per Nweze, JSC, made the point clear as follows:

It is not every failure to attend to grounds of appeal with the fastidious details prescribed by the Rules of this Court that would render such a ground incompetent This is particularly so where sufficient particulars can be gleaned from the grounds of Appeal and the adversary and the Court are left in no doubt as to the particulars on which the grounds are founded. Even then, Courts are encouraged to make the best they can out of a bad or inelegant ground of appeal in the interest of justice.

Put differently since the essence of the particulars is to project the reason for the ground complained of, the inelegance of the said particulars would not invalidate the grounds from which they follow This position: a position shaped by the contemporary shift from technicalities to substantial justices is, clearly evidenced in such cases like Aderounmu V Olowu (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt 652) 253 Indeed, this Court, recently stamped its infallible authority on this current posture. Abe V. Unilorin (2013) LPELR-20643; (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt 1379) 183.

Expositions Legal

deemlawful View All →

Educational || Motivational || Legal || Public Speaker || Professional || Activist ||

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: