BUREAU OF LAND AND SURVEY & ORS v. YUSUF & ANOR (2020)

BUREAU OF LAND AND SURVEY & ORS v. YUSUF & ANOR

(2020)LCN/14065(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020

CA/IB/237/2014

Before Our Lordships:

Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal

Nonyerem Okoronkwo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1.BUREAU OF LAND AND SURVEY 2.MRS. RONKE SOKEFUN (Special Adviser/Director General, Bureau Of Lands & Survey) 3.HON. COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE 4.ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OGUN STATE APPELANT(S)

And

1.CHIEF ALAO YUSUF (Chairman, Ilupeju Alagbede Community Development Association) 2.MR. ORIYOMI POPOOLA (For Themselves, Executives And Members Of Ilupeju Alagbede Community Development Association) RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT PRELIMINARY OBJECTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FIRST BEFORE THE CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RAISED BY PARTIES

The settled position of the law commands that before a consideration of the issues raised by parties in their Briefs of Argument, the Preliminary Objection should be given prominence. The reason is that, should the Preliminary Objection succeed, there may be no need going into the issues raised as the appeal would have terminated in limine. See JIMI JAJA VS. COP. RIVERS STATE (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1350) 225; NEPA VS. ANGO (2001) 15 NWLR (PT. 737) 627; OKUMODI VS. SOWUNMI (2004) 2 NWLR (PT. 856) 1; B.A.S.F. (NIG.) LTD. VS. FAITH ENT. LTD (2010) 4 NWLR (PT. 1183) 104; UDENWA VS. UZODINMA (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94 AT 111 PARAGRAPHS D – E. PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT IS BOUND BY THE RECORD OF APPEAL

The law is settled that a Court cannot go outside the record of appeal for the purpose of the determination of an appeal.The Courts as well as the parties in an appeal are bound by the record of Appeal. SeeALBAKIYA (NIG.) LTD. VS. SALAMI (1998) 4 NWLR (PT. 546) 448 AND PAN AFRICAN BANK VS. EDE (1998) 4 NWLR (PT. 558) 422 AT 432. PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST BE RAISED FROM THE GROUND OF APPEAL

It is now settled beyond peradventure that any issue formulated for the determination of an appeal must have its root in a Ground of Appeal. Where it does not, such issue will be redundant and must be discountenanced.Issues for determination in an appeal must fall within the scope of the grounds of appeal. See OKAFOR & ANOR. VS. EJIOGU (2011) LPELR – 3923 (CA); OGUNSOLA VS. NICON (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 536) 423; AGBOR VS. THE POLYTECHNIC CALABAR (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 533) 1998 AND SAMBAKIU VS. SANNI (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 505) 1629.
In the case of ODUNTAN VS. GENERAL OIL LTD. (1995) LPELR 2249, ONU JSC held thus:
“It is now fairly well settled that issues for determination formulated in an appeal must of necessity be limited, circumscribed and fall within the scope of the grounds of appeal filed since they arise from the grounds of appeal and cannot raise issues outside their contemplation.
See ADELAJA VS. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) 137 AT 148; CHINWEZE VS.MASI (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 97) 254; AGU VS. IKEWIBE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 180) 385 AT 407 AND UGO VS. OBIEKWE (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 99) 566.” PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT DEALS WITH ISSUES AND NOT GROUNDS OF APPEAL

It is now firmly settled that an Appellate Court deals with issues and not Grounds of Appeal and where no issue is distilled from a Ground of Appeal, such ground is deemed abandoned and should be struck out. See THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE & 2 ORS VS. AIDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) 646 AT 664 AND ADELAJA VS. FANOIKI & ANOR. (1990) 2 NWLR 137 AT 148; (1990) 3 SCNJ 131; OSINUPEBI VS. SAIBU (1982) 7 SC 104 AT 110 -111; WESTERN STEEL WORKS LTD. & ANOR. VS. IRON AND STEEL WORKERS UNION OF NIGERIA & ANOR.(1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 49) 284 AT 304; UGO VS. OBIEKWE & ANOR. (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 99) 566 AT 580 AND NDIWE VS. OKOCHA (1992) 7 NWLR (PT. 252) 129 AT 139. PER OJO, J.C.A.

VALIDITY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL

It has been held severally by this Court that Grounds of Appeal are the soul of an Appeal. They contain the reasons why the decision appealed against is considered wrong by the aggrieved party. It is further settled that where the validity of Grounds of Appeal is successfully challenged in an appeal, nothing remains in that appeal. See FASUYI & ORS VS. PDP & ORS (2017) LPELR 43462 (SC); OKEKE AMADI VS. OKEKE OKOLI (1977) 11 NSCC 177 AT 118.
A Notice of Appeal will only be valid if it contains at least one valid Ground of Appeal. A Notice of Appeal without any valid Ground of Appeal is valueless and incompetent. It is incurably bad and cannot be cured by any amendment. See ERISI & ORS. VS. IDIKA & ORS. (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 66) 503 AT 516; AKEREDOLU & ORS. VS. AKINREMI & ORS.(1984) 4 SC 325 AT 372; GLOBAL TRANSPORT OCEANIC C.S.A & ANOR. VS. FREE ENTERPRISES (NIG.) LTD. (2001) 2 SCNJ 224; ADERIBIGBE & ANOR. VS. ABIDOYE (2009) LPELR – 140 (SC) AND KHALIL VS.YAR’ADUA (2003) 16 NWLR (PT. 847) 446.
The long established position of the law is that where all the Grounds of Appeal contained in a Notice of Appeal are found to be incompetent as in this appeal, the entire Notice of Appeal is a nullity and an Appellate Court is left with no option but to strike out that Appeal. PER OJO, J.C.A.

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Judgment of the Ogun State High Court, sitting at Abeokuta in the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on 23rd January, 2014. In that judgment, the lower Court found against the Appellants (then Defendants on all issues submitted to it for determination by the Respondents (then Claimants).

The Appellants who are dissatisfied with the Judgment filed the Instant Appeal.

Briefly, the facts of this case are as follows:
By an Originating Summons filed at the lower Court on the 28th of September, 2012, the Respondents as Claimants sought the determination of the following question:
“Whether having regard to the provisions of the Land Use Act 1978 and the Ogun State Government Gazette No.18 Vol. 36 dated 5/5/2011 the 1st Defendant can by its letter with reference number LA/10/46/252 dated 31st July, 2012 cancel and withdraw the Claimants restored Right of Occupancy, which had become vested right in the land subject matter of this action.”

And sought the following reliefs:
(i) A Declaration that the decision contained in the letter with

Reference No. LA/10/46/252 dated 31st July, 2012 addressed to the Chairman, Ilupeju Alagbede Community Development Association purporting to cancel and withdraw the release and excision of 351 Hectares of land to the 31 villages under the Claimant Community Development Association is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatever.
(ii) An Order setting aside the decision contained in the said letter with Reference No. LA/10/46/252 dated 31st July, 2012.
(iii) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their agents, privies or officials from giving effect or further effect to the decision contained in the said letter, or from disturbing by whatsoever means the peaceful enjoyment of the land in dispute by the Claimants.”

The case of the Respondents is that sometimes in 2010, the Ilupeju Alagbede Community Development Association, vide a letter dated 9/2/2010 applied to the Ogun State Government to restore the Right of Occupancy of the Community earlier acquired by the defunct Western State Government in respect of 351 hectares of Land within their community. The request was granted vide a

letter dated 24/01/2011.

It is further the case of the Respondents that after the restoration of their Right of Occupancy, some tenants of the 3rd Appellant continued to disturb their peaceful enjoyment of the land which necessitated their filing a complaint before a Commission of Inquiry set up by the State Government to inquire into administration of land within the state between 2007 and 2011. The Respondents stated that to their surprise, the 1st Appellant vide a letter dated 31/7/2012 informed them that the earlier Right of Occupancy restored by the Ogun State Government on the over 351 hectares of land has been cancelled and withdrawn.

For their part, the Appellants admitted the cancellation and withdrawal of the Respondents’ Right of Occupancy but say same was done based on the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry set up by the State Government to inquire into the allocation, sales acquisition and concession of State Land between January 2004 and May 2009.

The lower Court after hearing arguments on the Originating Summons gave its Judgment in which it made the following findings:
(1) That the action of the Respondent was

properly constituted.
(2) That the Respondents had the locus standi to institute the action.
(3) That the Preliminary Objection of the Appellants was misconceived.
(4) That the cancellation and withdrawal of the Statutory Right of Occupancy of the Respondents by the Appellants is illegal, unlawful, ultra vires and null and void. See page 86 of the record.
And went on to make the following orders:
(1) That the decision contained in the letter Reference No.LA/10/46/252 dated 31/7/2012 addressed to the Chairman Ilupeju Alagbede Community Development Association purporting to cancel and withdraw the release and excision of 351 hectares of land to the 31 villages under the Respondents Community Development Association is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect.
(2) That the decision contained in the 1st Appellant’s letter Ref. No. LA/10/46/252 dated 31/7/2012 is set aside and
(3) That the Appellants either by themselves, their agents, privies or officials are restrained from giving effect or further effect to the decision contained in the 1st Appellants’ letter Ref. No. LA/10/46/252 dated 31/7/2012 or

from disturbing by whatsoever means the peaceful enjoyment of the land in dispute by the Respondents.

The Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants on 12/02/2014 contains three Grounds of Appeal. The Record of Appeal was transmitted on 12/5/14. The Appellants’ Brief of Argument filed on 21/4/2015 was deemed properly filed and served on 19/04/2018.

The Respondents filed a Motion on Notice on 3/1/2020 wherein he sought the following reliefs:
“An Order of the Honorable Court dismissing the appeal for lack of requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon same.
And for such further order(s) as this Honorable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

The Grounds of the Application are as follows:
“1. The Appellants’ Grounds of Appeal as contained in their Notice of Appeal did not emanate from the judgment of the lower Court being challenged.
2. The issues for determination formulated in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument were not distilled from any of the Grounds of Appeal raised in their Notice of Appeal.
3. There is no valid Ground of Appeal to sustain the Appeal.

The law is trite that Grounds of Appeal must emanate from the judgment being challenged.
5. The law is also well settled that issues for determination in an appeal must derive and be distilled from the Grounds of Appeal raised in the Notice of Appeal.”

The Respondents Brief of Argument filed on 19/6/18 was deemed as properly filed on 11/10/18. The Respondents incorporated a Notice of Preliminary Objection in their Brief of Argument which they argued in paragraphs 2.00 to 2.24 (pages 2-10) of the Respondents Brief of Argument. The gist of the Preliminary Objection as contained in Paragraph 2. 01 is as follows:
“2.01 The Respondents hereby raise a Preliminary Objection to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court on the ground that the Appellants’ Ground of Appeal are incompetent having not emanated from the decision of the Court below, or had been abandoned as no valid issues had been distilled from them.”

They further formulated three issues for determination to wit:
i. Whether the Claimants/Respondents have any right whatsoever in respect of the land subject matter of this suit.
ii. Whether the lower Court was

right to hold the action could be commenced by way of Originating Summons.
iii. Whether the Appellants are not wrong to ascribe to the learned trial judge that the Court held “that the notice served on the Claimants did not comply with Section 44 of the Land Use Act 1978” when there was nowhere in the judgment that the learned trial Judge said any such thing.”

At the hearing of this Appeal on 24/2/2020, learned Counsel representing both parties adopted and relied on their respective Briefs of Argument.

I shall therefore deal with the Preliminary Objection raised and argued in the Respondents’ Brief of Argument first.

The grounds for the Preliminary Objection are as adumbrated in paragraph 2.01 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument which I quoted extensively earlier and the motion on notice filed by the Respondents on 3/1/2020.

Learned Counsel to the Respondents submitted that the Grounds of Appeal do not flow from the judgment of the lower Court complained about and did not challenge the ratio decidendi of that judgment. He craved in aid the cases of UCHEGBU VS. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. (NIG.) LTD. (2010) 2 NWLR (PT. 1178) 285; ADINNU VS. ADINNU (2013) 45 WRN 53 AT 57 and OCTS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD VS. PADSON INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS. (2013) 9 WRN 132 AT 152 – 153.

On ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal, learned counsel to the Respondents contended that the lower Court did not hold that the land belongs to the Respondents and that the issue of declaration of title to land canvassed by the Appellants under this ground did not emanate from the judgment. He submitted that the lower Court did not make any pronouncement

regarding title to land but only considered the letter dated 31/07/2012 viz-a-viz the Land Use Act and the 1999 Constitution as amended.

On ground two (2) of the Notice of Appeal, learned counsel submitted that issue number two formulated therefrom is at variance with the ground. He argued that the issue bears no relevance to the appeal in that the Respondents did not challenge any Government White Paper. He cited the case of AMOBI VS. NZEGWU (2014) 3 WRN 1 AT 28 -29 and OCTS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD. VS. PADSON IND. LTD. (SUPRA) to support his argument. He urged us to strike out this Ground of Appeal as no valid issue has been distilled from it.

With respect to ground three of the Notice of Appeal, counsel drew our attention to the fact that no issue was formulated therefrom and as such the ground is deemed abandoned.

He submitted that where all grounds of Appeal are incompetent, the Notice of Appeal is a nullity and urged us to so hold. He relied on the cases ofFIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LTD. VS. NJOKU (1995) 5 NWLR (PT. 384) 457; NSIRIM VS. NSIRIM (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 138) 285; OLADELE VS. THE STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 170) 708 AT 718; OGUNBIYI VS. ISHOLA

(1996) 6 NWLR (PT. 452) 12 AT 22 – 23 and several other cases.

He submitted further that the Appellants did not specify the ground or grounds of appeal from which the issues they formulated were distilled from contrary to settled judicial authorities. He craved in aid the case of NIGERIA PORT PLC. VS. BEECHAM PHARM. LTD. (2013) 25 WRN 38AT 61 – 62.
He finally urged us to uphold the Preliminary Objection and dismiss the appeal.

It is significant to note at this stage that the Appellant did not file a Reply Brief of Argument. Failure to file a Reply Brief in the present circumstance is very fatal as the Appellant did not join issues with the Respondent on the Preliminary Objection raised and argued in the Respondents Brief of Argument.See OGIDI & ORS. VS. CHIEF EGBA & ORS (1999) 10 NWLR (PT. 621) 42 AT 71 – 72; AGBAKA VS. AMADI (1998) 11 NWLR (PT. 572) 16, YUSUF VS. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD. (1996) 6 SCNJ 203 AT 210.
In the case of MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS. VS. IYEN (2014) LPELR – 22437 this Court per Abubakar JCA held thus:
“Appellant’s Counsel did not file any Reply Brief which means the

Appellants did not react to the Preliminary Objection. Non filing of reply brief may amount to concession to the points raised by the Respondent in his Brief of Argument but in the instant appeal, the points raised in the preliminary objection relates to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the grounds of appeal and the issues raised therefrom. A Court of law cannot entertain a matter where it lacks jurisdiction to do so and it is also settled that a Court of law cannot be conferred jurisdiction by consent of parties.
This Court is therefore under a duty to consider the points raised by the Respondent questioning the competence of Appellants’ grounds of appeal. See DAIRO VS. UBN (2006) WRN (VOL.2) 1 AT 9 PG. 26. I will therefore consider the objection raised by the Respondent where a preliminary objection is raised in the Respondent’s Brief of Argument; the Appellant is expected to file a Reply Brief. See NWANKWO VS. ECUMENICAL DEV. CO. SOCIETY (2002) 1 NWLR PT. 749, 513”.
Let me re-emphasise that the implication of the Appellants inaction in filing a reply brief is that they are deemed to have conceded to the points raised in the Notice

of Objection filed by the Respondents. See JOHN HOLT VENTURES LTD. VS. OPUTA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 470) 101; ONYEJEKWE VS. THE NIGERIA POLICE COUNCIL (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 463) 704, ANDUBA PLC. VS. AJILEYE (1999) 13 NWLR (PT. 653) 116.
Be that as it may, the Respondents still has the obligation to prove that the points raised in the Notice of Preliminary Objection are sustainable and the Court has a bounden duty to consider the merits of the objection.

Now, to a consideration of the Grounds of Appeal vis-a-vis the issues formulated by the Appellants.

Ground One (1) of the Notice of Appeal together with its particulars on pages 87 – 88 of the Record read thus:
“GROUND 1
ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by holding that the land belongs to the Claimants.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i) The Court ought to have taken judicial notice of all subsidiary legislations.
ii) The trial Court was quick to assume that the Ilupeju Alagbede Community was in existence as at the time the land was acquired by the then Western Region.
iii) There is nothing to show that the land was acquired from the Claimants.”

I have painstakingly reviewed the Record of Appeal and there is nowhere the lower Court held that the land belongs to the Respondent. As a matter of fact, the issue of title to the disputed land did not arise at all. There is nowhere in the record of appeal where the issue of title to land was raised and considered.

The Respondents applied to the lower Court to determine the question whether having regard to the provisions of the Land Use Act 1978 and the Ogun State Government Gazette No. 18 Vol. 36 dated 5/5/2011, the 1st Appellant can by its letter Reference No.LA10/46/252 dated 31st July 2012, cancel and withdraw their Right of Occupancy. After a consideration of all the processes filed before it, the lower Court found that the suit was the result of the 1st Appellant’s letter with Reference No.LA10/46/252 dated 31/07/2012 by which the Ogun State Government re-acquired the land. The lower Court also found that being a fresh acquisition, the Appellants had an obligation to comply with the Land Use Act 1978 on the procedure for acquiring property. See pages 83 – 84 of the record.

I further observe from the record that the Appellants granted the

Respondents title to the land by their letter dated 24/01/2011. The letter is at page 7 – 8 of the Record. The grant was Gazetted. It was against this background that the lower Court held that the Appellants could not acquire the land without complying with the law. The issue determined by the lower Court was very clear. It is whether the Ogun State Government could re-acquire land it validly granted the Respondent without following due process of law. The law is settled that a Court cannot go outside the record of appeal for the purpose of the determination of an appeal.The Courts as well as the parties in an appeal are bound by the record of Appeal. SeeALBAKIYA (NIG.) LTD. VS. SALAMI (1998) 4 NWLR (PT. 546) 448 AND PAN AFRICAN BANK VS. EDE (1998) 4 NWLR (PT. 558) 422 AT 432.
I repeat that there is nothing on record to suggest that the lower Court determined the issue of title to land and I so hold.
The inevitable conclusion is that Ground One (1) of the Notice of Appeal together with its particulars do not emanate from the judgment appealed against and it is accordingly struck out.

Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal together with its particulars as

contained at page 88 of the record read thus:
“GROUND 2
ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial Judge erred in law by holding that Originating Summons is the proper method of instituting this action.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i) A perusal of paragraphs 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons show that there are substantial dispute of facts in respect of the existence of the Community (Ilupeju Alagbede Community) and ownership of the land acquired by the Western region.”

In their Preliminary Objection filed before the lower Court on 8/4/2013, the Appellants prayed the Court to strike out the Respondents action on the ground that there are facts in dispute which may require the calling of witnesses and as such Originating Summons was not the appropriate mode of commencing the suit. See pages 50 – 56 of the Record.

The lower Court overruled the Appellants and at page 76 of the record held that the Respondents by their claim only sought for the interpretation of the Land Use Act, Gazette No.18 of 25/05/2011 and the letter from the 1st Appellant dated 31/07/2012. The Court went on to validate the

Respondent’s action brought by way of Originating Summons.

Issue Two (2) formulated for determination in the Appellants Brief of Argument is as follows:
“Whether an Originating Summons can be used to commence an action challenging a government White Paper on land matters and where the facts are in dispute”

It is obvious from the record that the issue of challenge of a government White Paper did not arise before the lower Court and I am at a loss as to how Appellants’ Counsel came about this issue.

The Appellants cancelled and withdrew the Respondents’ Right of Occupancy following the recommendation of a Commission of Inquiry set up by the Ogun State Government. That recommendation is what is contained in a White Paper published as OGSLN No.12 Vol.27 and in the Punch Newspaper of Thursday, July 19, 2012.

The White Paper was not communicated to the Respondents. What the Respondents challenged at the lower Court is the 1st Appellant letter Reference No.LA10/46/252 dated 31st July 2012 (see pages 11- 12 of the Record) by which they (Appellants) cancelled and withdrew their restored Right of Occupancy in the land the subject

matter of the suit.

It is therefore my very firm view that the issue of using an Originating Summons to commence an action to challenge a government white paper did not arise and was not pronounced upon by the lower Court and I so hold. The second Issue does not fall within the scope of Ground Two (2) of the Notice of Appeal and indeed any of the Grounds and I so hold.
It is now settled beyond peradventure that any issue formulated for the determination of an appeal must have its root in a Ground of Appeal. Where it does not, such issue will be redundant and must be discountenanced.Issues for determination in an appeal must fall within the scope of the grounds of appeal. See OKAFOR & ANOR. VS. EJIOGU (2011) LPELR – 3923 (CA); OGUNSOLA VS. NICON (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 536) 423; AGBOR VS. THE POLYTECHNIC CALABAR (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 533) 1998 AND SAMBAKIU VS. SANNI (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 505) 1629.
In the case of ODUNTAN VS. GENERAL OIL LTD. (1995) LPELR 2249, ONU JSC held thus:
“It is now fairly well settled that issues for determination formulated in an appeal must of necessity be limited, circumscribed and fall within the scope of the

grounds of appeal filed since they arise from the grounds of appeal and cannot raise issues outside their contemplation.
See ADELAJA VS. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) 137 AT 148; CHINWEZE VS.MASI (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 97) 254; AGU VS. IKEWIBE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 180) 385 AT 407 AND UGO VS. OBIEKWE (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 99) 566.”
The summary of all of the above is that no valid issue has been distilled from ground two of the Notice of Appeal and I so hold. That ground is therefore deemed abandoned and it is accordingly struck out.

GROUND 3
ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by holding that the notice served on the Claimants did not comply with Section 44 of the Land Use Act 1978.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(i) That Exhibits “C” & “D” attached to the Claimants’ Originating Summons, restored only the rights of those whose land were acquired by the Western Region (Pre- acquisition holders).
(ii) There is no evidence before the Court that the Claimants are the pre-acquisition holders as contained in the Legal Notice.
(iii) The Claimants did not show that they are the ones entitled to the Notice of Revocation.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

For ease of reference I shall reproduce the issues distilled for determination in this appeal by the Appellant. They are:
(i) Whether the Claimant/Respondents have any right whatever in respect of the lands the subject of this suit.
(ii) Whether an Originating Summons can be used to commence an action challenging a government White Paper on land matters and where the facts are in dispute.

It is evident that the Appellants did not distill any issue for determination from this Ground of Appeal. None of the above issues emanate from this Ground of Appeal and I so hold.
It is now firmly settled that an Appellate Court deals with issues and not Grounds of Appeal and where no issue is distilled from a Ground of Appeal, such ground is deemed abandoned and should be struck out. See THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE & 2 ORS VS. AIDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) 646 AT 664 AND ADELAJA VS. FANOIKI & ANOR. (1990) 2 NWLR 137 AT 148; (1990) 3 SCNJ 131; OSINUPEBI VS. SAIBU (1982) 7 SC 104 AT 110 -111; WESTERN STEEL WORKS LTD. & ANOR. VS. IRON AND STEEL WORKERS UNION OF NIGERIA & ANOR.(1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 49) 284 AT 304; UGO VS. OBIEKWE & ANOR.

(1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 99) 566 AT 580 AND NDIWE VS. OKOCHA (1992) 7 NWLR (PT. 252) 129 AT 139.
The Appellants who did not distill any issue from Ground Three (3) of their Notice of Appeal are deemed to have abandoned same and I so hold. The Ground serves no purpose in this appeal and it is accordingly struck out.

(2001) 2 SCNJ 224; ADERIBIGBE & ANOR. VS. ABIDOYE (2009) LPELR – 140 (SC) AND KHALIL VS.YAR’ADUA (2003) 16 NWLR (PT. 847) 446.
The long established position of the law is that where all the Grounds of Appeal contained in a Notice of Appeal are found to be incompetent as in this appeal, the entire Notice of Appeal is a nullity and an Appellate Court is left with no option but to strike out that Appeal.
In view of the foregoing, I find the instant appeal incompetent. It has no leg to stand on. It is incurably bad and should be struck out. The consequence is that the Preliminary Objection of the Respondents is sustained. There is nothing more to consider in this appeal and it is hereby struck out in its entirety.
There shall be no Order as to costs.

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.: I read before now, the lead Judgment of my Lord FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, JCA just delivered and I agree with my Lord’s reasoning and conclusion.
I am also of the view that the appeal is incompetent and it is hereby struck out.
I abide by the consequential order made by the said

lead judgment.

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead judgment in this appeal as written by my lord Folasade Ayodeji Ojo JCA.

In concluding the reasoning on the appeal, my lord Ojo said
“The long established position of the law is that where all the Grounds of Appeal contained in a Notice of Appeal are found to be incompetent as in this appeal, the entire Notice of Appeal is a nullity and an Appellate Court is left with no option but to strike out that Appeal.”
In this appeal, there was really no challenge against the judgment and issues arising therefrom, the Notice of Appeal seem to have imbibed extraneous matters having no bearing on the judgment of the lower Court.
I therefore agree that the appeal is not competent. I also strike it out.

Appearances:

Absent For Appellant(s)

I. Ogah with him A. O. Lesi (Mrs) For Respondent(s)