30/05/2023
WHETHER IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COURT TO FORMULATE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION, IF IN ITS VIEW, THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION RAISED BY THE COUNSEL IN THE MATTER WOULD NOT APPROPRIATELY DETERMINE THE MAIN GRIEVANCE IN THE MATTER.
BY
CHIDINMA EKEKWE.
The law is trite; the main purpose of the formulation of issues for determination is to enable the parties to narrow down the issue or issues in controversy in the grounds of Appeal filed. This is in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity. The Court is therefore at liberty to reformulate the issues for determination in order to give it precision and clarity and achieve substantial justice in the resolution of the matter in controversy. The law is also settled that a court has unfettered discretion to rearrange or formulate issues for determination by the parties to meet the justice of the case.
An appellate Court is not under a regimental duty to take all the issues canvassed by the parties in the appeal. An appellate court can and is entitled to reformulate issue or issues formulated by a party or parties or counsel in order to give it precision and clarity if it appears that the issues they formulated are awkward or not well framed. As a matter of procedure, the Court of Appeal can formulate issues for determination and as long as the issues articulate and cover the grounds of appeal, the Supreme Court will not censure the Court of Appeal. The Purpose of reframing issue or issues is to lead to a more judicious and proper determination of an appeal. In other words, the purpose is to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity. As long as the issue or issues reframed, is/are anchored on the ground or grounds of appeal, the opposite counsel cannot complain.
See Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C. [Pp. 9-11, Paras. F-B] in NCC V. MOTOPHONE LTD & ANOR [2019] LPELR-47401[SC]
“Counsel must learn to assist the Court rather than muzzle and puzzle things up for the Court. I may however forgive this for the sake of justice since the said split or sub issue can give some meaning and understanding to a reasonable mind without misleading or occasioning miscarriage of justice. Thus, a party who complains about the formulation of issue or issues by the Court must say what injustice has been done to him by such formulation. In the absence of such evidence, an appellate Court cannot reverse the decision of the lower Court. The formulation of the issue by the Court must result in miscarriage of justice for this Court to intervene in favor of the appellant”.
It is hornbook law that a Court can and is entitled to re-formulate issues formulated by the parties or counsel in order to make a precision and clarity.
In the words of UWAIFO, JSC in MUSA SHA [jnr] & ANOR V. DA RAP KWAN & 0RS [2000] 8 NWLR [Pt.670] 685:
“The purpose of framing or re-framing an issue or issues, it is stated; is to lead to more judicious and proper determination of an appeal. The purpose of re-formulating it or them is in order to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity; I think it would be a misconception to argue that a court cannot suo motu reformulate an issue arising from the ground or grounds of appeal if the interest of justice demands this”.
In the words of PER OGWUEGBU, J.S.C in MUSA SHA [jnr] & ANOR V. DA RAP KWAN & 0RS [2000] 8 NWLR [Pt.670] 685 at pages 708-709, paras H-B, “so long as it will not lead to injustice of the opposite side, the court below was right in re-framing the issue for determination”. In the same way, the Court of Appeal in MAIYEGUN V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE [2011] 2 NWLR [pt.1230] 154 at pages 168, paras A-B observed: “the court has wide powers to adopt or even formulate issues that in its view could determine the real grievance in the appeal”.
SEE RELATED CASES LIKE:
1. OKORO V. STATE [1988] 5 NWLR [PT.94] 255.
2. LATUNDE V. LAJINFIN [1989] 3 NWLR [PT.108] 177.
3. LABILE V. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM CHURCH OF ZION OF NIGERIA, UGBOBIA [2003] 2 NWLR [PT.804] 399.
4. AWOJUGBAGBE LIGHT INDUSTRIES LTD V. CHINUKWE [1995] 5 NWLR [PT.390] 379.
5. BANKOLE V. PELU [1991] 8 NWLR [PT.211] 523.
.b.ekekwelawfirm
