FOLASHADE TOLULOLA AJAYI v. DR. ADEDAYO BENEDICT AJAYI
(2014)LCN/6914(CA)
RATIO
APPEAL: WHETHER ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN AN APPEAL MUST BE DEDUCED FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
I am of the firm view that the reasons so stated above by the learned trial Judge constitute the ratio upon which the Appellant’s Application was refused and they are therefore the ratio decidendi. It is therefore undoubtedly settled law that a Ground of Appeal against obiter dictum is incompetent and liable to be struck out. See: XTOUDOS SERVICES NIGERIA LTD. & ANOR V. TAISEI (W.A.) LTD. & ANOR. (2006) 26 NSCQLR 1185 at 1199; SANDE V. ABDULLAHI (1989) 7 NWLR (PT. 116) 384; OGUNBIYI V. ISHOLA (1996) 6 NWLR (PT. 452) 12; COKER V. UBA PLC. (1997) 2 NWLR (PT. 490) 641; NDISE V. WILLIAMS (1995) 1 NWLR (PT. 370) 142 at 150. In CHAMI V. UBA PLC. (2010) 6 NWLR (PT. 1191) 474 at 493 PARAGRAPHS E – F, the Supreme court is so emphatic that the Grounds of Appeal must attack the ratio, when it held:- “It is settled law that issues for determination must be distilled from Grounds of Appeal which Ground(s) must attack the ratio decidendi of the judgment not anything said by the way, or obiter dicta or be formulated in vacuo, as issue 5 in the instant case.” Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A
