ISIAKA v. CBN (2020)

ISIAKA v. CBN

(2020)LCN/14012(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, March 30, 2020

CA/IB/186/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Court of Appeal

Nonyerem Okoronkwo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ADELUBI ISIAKA APPELANT(S)

And

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

CONSOLIDATION OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL

However, as in the instant case, where the Notice of Appeal indicates without ambiguity that, the appeal is taken against two separate and distinct decisions of the lower Court, the party appealing (Appellant) must file two separate Notices of Appeal, one for each decision appealed against. Where the Appellant desires that the two appeals be heard together, he can apply for consolidation. In the instant case, a single Notice of Appeal filed in respect of two distinct and separate Rulings of the trial Court is incompetent and should be struck out. See Nwaeze & Anor v. Eze & Ors (1999) 3 NWLR (pt.595);(1999) LPELR – 6606 (CA); INEC v. Nyako & Ors (Consolidated) (2011) LPELR 4314 (CA); Ifeajuna v. Ifeajuna (1998) LPELR 6181 (CA) and Afribank (Nig.) Ltd v. Owoseni (1995) 2 NWLR (pt.375) 110. On that note, this appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out. PER TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

The right of appeal from the decision of the Federal High Court, as in the instant case, to the Court of Appeal, is regulated by Sections 241, 242 and 243 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Though none of those provisions have prescribed the time within which an appeal may be filed, the right of appeal is not on open-ended matter. It is subject to the Statutory and/or Procedural Laws which regulate the way and manner such right of appeal may be exercised. When it comes to the exercise of rights of appeal to this Court, from the decisions of either the Federal or State High Courts, Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap.36, Laws of the Federation, 2004 stipulates as follows:
24-(1) Where a person desires to appeal to the Court of Appeal, he shall give notice of appeal or notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by rules of Court within the period; prescribed by the provisions of sub-section 2 of this section that is applicable to the case.
(2) The periods for the giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are-
(a) in an appeal in a civil cause or matter, fourteen days where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision and three months where the appeal is against a final decision;
(b) in an appeal in a criminal cause or matter, ninety days from the date of the decision appealed against. (underlined by me for emphasis). PER TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT LEAVE OF COURT MUST BE OBTAINED WHERE A PARTY FAILS TO APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED

Where the party fails to appeal within the period prescribed, the leave of this Court must be first sought and obtained. See Oteki v. A.G; Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (pt.24) 648; Ekunola v. CBN & Anor (2013) 15 NWLR (pt.1377) 224 and Ladoja v. Ajimobi & Ors (2016) 10 NWLR (pt.1519) 88. Thus in Ladoja v. Ajimobi (supra), Ogunbiyi, JSC said:
“It is elementary principle of law that the right to appeal is constitutional. However, it is within the province of the law also that the exercise of such right must be within the bounds and not at large… All rights are subject to limitation and a constitutional right is not an exception but is circumscribed also within that principle.”
Similarly in Ekunola v. CBN & Anor (supra) My Lord, Ngwuta, JSC said:
“A right of appeal or any other right granted by law cannot be exercised without compliance with the law granting the right, or any other law or rule regulating the exercise of the right.”PER TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT EVERY GROUND OF APPEAL MUST BE SUPPORTED BY PARTICULARS

Now, Order 7 Rules (2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 stipulate that:
“(2) Where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated.
(3) The notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds upon which the Appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal without any argument or narrative and shall be numbered consecutively.”
It is not the law that every ground of appeal must be supported by particulars. In other words, there is no legal requirement to the effect that the particulars of a ground of appeal must be set out separately. Thus, if by the nature of the ground, the particulars can be read from the ground itself, such ground would be competent. See Ministry of Works v. Tomas (Nig.) Ltd (2002) 2 NWLR (pt.752) 740; Ila Enterprises Ltd v. Umar Ali & Co. (Nig.) Ltd (2013) 15 NWLR (pt.1376) 191 and Dakolo v. Rewane-Dakolo & Ors (2011) LPELR – 915 (SC). I have looked at the five (5) Grounds of Appeal as contained in the Notice of Appeal at pages 526 – 546 of the Record of Appeal. I notice that all the Grounds of Appeal, though inelegantly drafted, are all supported by particulars.
It should be noted however, that, by sub-rule (3) of Order 7 Rule (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules (supra), a Ground of Appeal shall be devoid of narrations or arguments. It therefore means that, a ground of appeal must be clear, precise and succinct as to bring out the nature of the complaint of the Appellant. A ground of appeal shall be precise and devoid of confusion. In other words, a ground of appeal shall be lucid and clear enough for a just resolution of the appeal. Consequently, where the ground of appeal is imprecise, ambiguous, and argumentative and/or narrative, it will be fatal to the competence of such ground of appeal. See Nwosu v. PDP & Ors (2018) LPELR – 44386 (SC); Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdulraheem (2009) All FWLR (pt.497) 1 and NRC v. Cudjoe (2008) 10 NWLR (pt.1095). PER TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Rulings of the Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan delivered by J. O. Abdulmalik, J on the 26th day of September, 2017 and 16th day of January, 2018 respectively, in Suit No: FHC/IB/CS/105/2015.

The Appellant herein, who was the Applicant, instituted the action before the Federal High Court, sitting in Ibadan by way of a Motion on Notice pursuant to Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011. The said Motion which was signed by one Abdul Raheem Adebayo Shittu; Esq (Barrister-at-Law) was dated the 19th day of June, 2015 but filed on the 22nd day of June, 2015. By the said Motion, the Appellant/Applicant sought the following reliefs:
1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Central Bank of Nigeria to disclose whether the Application of Share of Intercontinental Bank Plc (now Access Bank Plc) was rejected by Central Bank or not.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Central Bank of Nigeria to disclose whether a cheque No.00490062 for the sum of N26,747,984.24 issued on 30/1/2008 is for the

settlement of Share being rejected by the CBN or otherwise.
3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the “Trade and Foreign Exchange Department” in the Central Bank of Nigeria to disclose some specific forex stated in the Applicant’s letter dated 18th May, 2015 that was requested for information under Freedom of Information Act, 2011.
AND for such or other orders the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the suit.

The Motion was supported by an Affidavit of 43 paragraphs deposed to by the Applicant/Appellant himself. Several documents where annexed to the Affidavit in Support of the Application and marked as Exhibits 1 – 18D. The Motion (Application) was accompanied by a Written Address of two (2) pages. Upon being served, the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance through her counsel M. O. Adebayo; Esq. It was followed by a Notice of Preliminary Objection which was supported by an Affidavit of 12 paragraphs and a Written Address. The Notice of Preliminary Objection was premised on the following Grounds:
(a). That the suit was not commenced by an initiating/originating process.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

(b). That all necessary parties to the suit have not been brought before the Honourable Court.
(c). That the issues involved in the suit is presently a subject of litigation in Suit No. LD/1480/11 between KERIE DEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC at the Lagos State High Court, Lagos.

In reaction to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Applicant/Appellant filed a Counter-Affidavit of 37 paragraphs deposed to by the Applicant/Appellant himself; and a Written Address. The parties argued the Preliminary Objection and in a considered Ruling delivered on the 26th day of September, 2017, the learned trial Judge upheld the objection and struck out the suit.

It should be not however, that on the 6th day of November, 2017, the Applicant/Appellant filed a Motion Ex-parte seeking the order of the trial Court to relist the suit which was struck out on the 26/9/2017. After hearing, argument on the Ex-parte motion, the learned trial Judge dismissed same. Apparently aggrieved by the two Rulings of 26/9/2017 and 16/01/2018, the Applicant/Appellant has appealed to this Court.

The Notice of Appeal which is contained in pages 526 –

547 of the Record of Appeal transmitted to this Court on the 25/4/2018, was filed on the 01/2/2018. It consists of five (5) Grounds of Appeal. In compliance with the Rules of this Court, the parties filed and Exchanged Briefs of Arguments. The Appellants Brief of Arguments was dated and filed on the 05/6/2018. Two issues were formulated by the Appellant which issues appear to mix-up issues. In other words, the issues formulated by the Appellant appear to be incoherent and in breach of the Rules of this Court, and particularly Order 19 Rule 2 which stipulate that, a Brief of Argument shall be a “Succinct Statement” of the arguments of the party in the appeal.
The purpose of formulating issues for determination in an appeal is to enable the parties narrow the issues in controversy in the grounds of appeal. The issue formulated should be accurate, clear and brief. In other words, the issues for determination must be concisely and precisely formulated. In the instant case, the issues formulated by the Appellant are loaded and obfuscated as to the nature of the complaint of the Appellant. However, since the Appellant is one who is not learned in

Law, I shall endeavor to consider the issues as formulated and see what can be made out of it. For ease of reference, the issues formulated by the Appellant read as follows:
1. Whether it is erred law that the learned trial Judge of Court (Hon. Justice Ayo N. Emmanuel) was right not to take into cognizance the first application which was in nature a fundamental right was made out to be transferred to Judicial Division in Abuja with a reason that the learned trial Judge did not know whether it was Originating Motion or Motion on Notice that was granted as an order ex-parte when an issue was raised by the Respondent counsel to challenge a procedural jurisdictional competence of the Court. But, having reversed on interlocutory order made by the Court 1 by the immediate past Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (Ibrahim N. Auta) and remitted the proceeding to the Court of Co-ordinate jurisdiction to set aside a null order or an offending (Order 2 Rule 3) issued by the Court 1 and to make a Ruling in conformity with Section 294(5) of the 1999 Constitution complained by the Applicant’s but the Court of Co-Ordinate jurisdiction ought to ignore a

fundamental right that was made out raised by the Respondent and premised upon the Respondent counsel strike out the case that an Appellant commenced an action by Motion on Notice instead of the Applicant to commence an action by an order of Mandamus. While, at the subsequent proceeding, an application for leave filed in accordance with Section 241(2) 1999 Constitution and Motion for re-listing in conformity with the Court of Appeal principle per Ayoola, JCA in (1998) 1 HRLRA 322 at 328 – 329 of Mudashirukokoro-Owo case which was affirmed by the Supreme Court was dismissed by the Court of Co-Ordinate jurisdiction followed the fact that the Motion on Notice for relisting did not file before the application for leave; and the Judge ought to call an oral hearing in support of Motion for relisting upon which the Appellant refuse to ridicule the integrity of the Court of law at public hearing to explain missing document which was an Administrative affair despite the missing document had been filed and served Respondent counsel accordingly.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law in dismissing the suit when she found the Respondent being guilty of

an offence creating by statute; non-compliance with provisions stating therein the Act and/or the FREP Rules; and the Court premised upon the Respondent counsel who raised issues without any evidence; while, the evidence raised by the Applicant attached and marked as Exhibits to rebuttal allegations of the Respondent and its counsel Notice of preliminary Objection as well as some Evidences filed to claim damages or compensation at cost of hardship, pains, stress and Economic losses in the course of carryout an investigation of crime or fraud that the Appellant was attached for the first time at General Gas in Ibadan while the (2nd) attached caused the Appellant to be sustained on injury in his head when the suspected hired assassins used an object to hit the Applicant head at a business centre along Secretariat and Bodija road near Custom office where the Appellant was making photocopies of the forex transactions and the Access bank Statement of Accounts which the place is now called Agro realities before a team of policemen among them was CPL Benson at Ikolaba Police Station who was eventually came and carried the Appellant to MAK Clinic Hospital at Akinloye

Layout to stitch his head that the suspected hire assassins used an object to hit him, but all these evidences were regarded as Academic issues.

The Respondent’s Brief of Arguments settled by Mutalubi O. Adebayo; Esq was dated the 22/01/2019 and filed on the 23/01/2019 but deemed filed on the 6/2/2019. Only one issue was raised therein for determination as follows:
“Whether in view of the fact and circumstances in this matter, the learned Judge of the Court below was right in granting the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection placed before him, striking out the suit and subsequently dismissing the application for re-listing filed by the Appellant.”

It should however be noted that, the Respondent raised and argued a Preliminary Objection at pages 4 – 10 of the Respondent’s Brief of Arguments. The said Notice of Preliminary Objection reads as follows:
TAKE NOTICE that at the hearing of this Appeal, counsel on behalf of the Respondent shall urge the Honourable Court to strike out and/or dismiss this appeal for want of competence for having been filed in

violation of relevant Court of Appeal Rules, Court of Appeal Act and Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION
1. There are no competent grounds to support the Notice of Appeal filed.
2. The Notice of Appeal in this appeal has been filed in breach of Section 24(1) & (2) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004.

Arguing on the Notice of Preliminary Objection, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that, the filing of a sole Notice of Appeal against the two Rulings of the trial Court delivered on 26/9/2017 and 16/1/2018 without the leave of Court deprived this Court of requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent also contended that, Ruling on the Preliminary Objection before the trial Court was delivered on the 26/9/2017 while the Ruling on the Ex-parte application for relisting of the suit at the trial Court was delivered on the 16/01/2018. That the Notice of Appeal on the two (2) Rulings was filed on the 01/2/2018. That by Section 24(1) & (2) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time. The cases of

Okeke Amadi v. Okeke Okoli (1977) 3 S.C.110 and Ralph Uwazurike & 6 Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2007) All FWLR (pt.367) 834 at 846 were then cited to submit that, it is crystal clear that the Appellant was out of the statutory period prescribed by the enabling law as at the 01/2/2018 when he filed his Notice of Appeal against the Ruling of the 26/9/17 and 16/01/2018. We were accordingly urged to decline jurisdiction and to strike out the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 01/2/2018 as same was filed out of the time prescribed by the law; and without an application for extension of time first sought and obtained.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent went on to submit that, Ground 4 was not raised at the Court below nor was it pronounced upon by the trial Court. That, being a fresh issue, leave of this Court ought to have been obtained before raising same; and that such leave having not been sought and granted or obtained, Ground 4 is incompetent. The cases of Koya v. U.B.A. Ltd (1997) 1 NWLR (pt.481) 251; Incar v. Bolex (2001) 4 M.J.S.C.1; Rockonoh v. Nitel

(2001) 1 M.J.S.C.37 and N.D.I.C. v. Okem Ent. (2004) 7 MJSC 74 were cited in support; and to further submit that, the position becomes more apposite because the issue cannot be properly raised without the need to provide additional material or evidence. That as a corollary to the above submission, issue two (2) said to be distilled from the said Ground (4) is incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that, Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are also afflicted by two other fundamental vices; to writ:
(a) that the Grounds are without particulars of error committed by the lower Court; and
(b) that the Grounds are narrative, argumentative, and full of conclusions.

It was thus submitted that a Ground of Appeal should not contain narratives or arguments; and that where a Ground of Appeal are full of such narratives, arguments and/or conclusions, they are liable to be struck out. The cases of ASR CO. LTD v. BIOSAH & CO. (1997) NWLR (pt.527) 145 at 159; Atunrase v. Phillips (1996) NWLR (pt.427) 637 at 648 were cited in support. That the vagueness of Grounds of Appeal may in any of the following circumstances:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>

(a) where it is couched in a manner which does not provide any explicit stand for it to be understood.
(b) When the compliant therein is not defined in relation to the subject.
(c) When it is not particularized
(d) When the particulars are clearly irrelevant.

The case of Addax Petroleum Dev. (Nig) Ltd v. Duke (2010) 8 NWLR (pt.1196) 278 at 284 was cited in support; and to also submit that in the instant case, the grounds of appeal are couched in such ambiguous manner that it does not provide any explicit stand for it to be understood. That they are clearly irrelevant and bogus and therefore incompetent in view of Order 7 Rule 2 (2) & (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016; and therefore should be struck out. We were accordingly urged to strike out the two issues formulated by the Appellant in page 160 of the Appellant’s Brief of Arguments. That, if the two issues are struck out, there will be nothing else to sustain the appeal. We were accordingly urged to strike out the appeal for being incompetent, as you cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. The cases of Macfoy v. U.A.C. (1961) 2 All NLR 1169; Igwe v. Kalu

(2002) 14 NWLR (pt.787) 435 at 454; Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (pt.956) 1 and Ochor v. Ojo (2008) 13 NWLR (pt.1105) 524 at 541 – 543 were cited in support.

Now, I have carefully perused the processes filed before this Court in respect of this appeal. Upon such perusal, I discovered that the Appellant did not file any Appellant’s Reply Brief wherein, he could have responded to the issues raised in the Preliminary Objection to the competence of this appeal, raised and argued by the Appellant in pages 4 – 10 of the Respondent’s Brief of Arguments filed on the 23/1/2019 but deemed filed on the 6/2/2019. However, I shall proceed to consider the issues raised in the Preliminary Objection in the interest of justice, so as to see whether or not they are merited.

The first issue raised in the Preliminary Objection is that, a Single Notice of Appeal was filed in respect of two Rulings of the Court below, which were delivered on the 26/9/2017 and 16/01/2018 respectively. In the instant case, there were two separate Rulings of the Court below. One was delivered on 26/9/2017 while the other was delivered on the 16/01/2018. This is

apparent from the preamble to the Notice of Appeal at page 526 of the Record of Appeal which states as follows:
“TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision contained in the ruling of Honourable Justice (Joyce O. Abdumalik) of the Federal High Court (2) or the Court of coordinate jurisdiction in Ibadan dated 26th day of September, 2017 to strike out the case and 16th day of January, 2018 to dismiss the suit respectively, doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the ground set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4.
As noted earlier, the Single Notice and Grounds of Appeal is in respect of two separate and distinct decisions of the trial Court. The single notice of appeal could be countenanced if the appeal emanates from a consolidated action filed in the trial Court. In other words, where an appeal is filed against a decision in consolidated suits, and the Notice of Appeal indicates that it is against “the whole decision”, a single notice of appeal may be countenanced, and the appeal may be taken to be from the decision as it affects the totality

of the consolidated suits. However, as in the instant case, where the Notice of Appeal indicates without ambiguity that, the appeal is taken against two separate and distinct decisions of the lower Court, the party appealing (Appellant) must file two separate Notices of Appeal, one for each decision appealed against. Where the Appellant desires that the two appeals be heard together, he can apply for consolidation. In the instant case, a single Notice of Appeal filed in respect of two distinct and separate Rulings of the trial Court is incompetent and should be struck out. See Nwaeze & Anor v. Eze & Ors (1999) 3 NWLR (pt.595);(1999) LPELR – 6606 (CA); INEC v. Nyako & Ors (Consolidated) (2011) LPELR 4314 (CA); Ifeajuna v. Ifeajuna (1998) LPELR 6181 (CA) and Afribank (Nig.) Ltd v. Owoseni (1995) 2 NWLR (pt.375) 110. On that note, this appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant also argued that the Notice of Appeal is incompetent, also on the ground that it was filed out of time, whether it is in respect of the Ruling delivered on the 26/9/2017 or 16/1/2018. It should be noted that the right of appeal

is a constitutional imperative. The right of appeal from the decision of the Federal High Court, as in the instant case, to the Court of Appeal, is regulated by Sections 241, 242 and 243 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Though none of those provisions have prescribed the time within which an appeal may be filed, the right of appeal is not on open-ended matter. It is subject to the Statutory and/or Procedural Laws which regulate the way and manner such right of appeal may be exercised. When it comes to the exercise of rights of appeal to this Court, from the decisions of either the Federal or State High Courts, Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap.36, Laws of the Federation, 2004 stipulates as follows:
24-(1) Where a person desires to appeal to the Court of Appeal, he shall give notice of appeal or notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by rules of Court within the period; prescribed by the provisions of sub-section 2 of this section that is applicable to the case.
(2) The periods for the giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are-
(a) in

an appeal in a civil cause or matter, fourteen days where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision and three months where the appeal is against a final decision;
(b) in an appeal in a criminal cause or matter, ninety days from the date of the decision appealed against. (underlined by me for emphasis).
It should be noted that the Court of Appeal Act (supra), has been enacted pursuant to the powers granted the National Assembly by Section 243(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra).
I think the above provisions of Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act (supra) cited above are very clear and unambiguous. Thus, where the appeal is from an interlocutory decision of the Court of trial, a person exercising his or her right of appeal must do so within a period of fourteen (14) days, but where it is a final decision, the appeal must be initiated within three (3) months of the decision appealed against. Where the party fails to appeal within the period prescribed, the leave of this Court must be first sought and obtained. See Oteki v. A.G; Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (pt.24) 648; Ekunola v. CBN & Anor

(2013) 15 NWLR (pt.1377) 224 and Ladoja v. Ajimobi & Ors (2016) 10 NWLR (pt.1519) 88. Thus in Ladoja v. Ajimobi (supra), Ogunbiyi, JSC said:
“It is elementary principle of law that the right to appeal is constitutional. However, it is within the province of the law also that the exercise of such right must be within the bounds and not at large… All rights are subject to limitation and a constitutional right is not an exception but is circumscribed also within that principle.”
Similarly in Ekunola v. CBN & Anor (supra) My Lord, Ngwuta, JSC said:
“A right of appeal or any other right granted by law cannot be exercised without compliance with the law granting the right, or any other law or rule regulating the exercise of the right.”
In the instant case, the Appellant in the exercise of his right of appeal constitutionally guaranteed, must comply with the provisions of Section 24(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004. The Notice of Appeal which is in respect of a combination of two Rulings of the trial Court, was clearly filed out of the fourteen (14) days prescribed by Section 24(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act

(supra). On that Ground therefore, the Notice of Appeal is filed out of time thereby denying this Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent also contended that the Grounds of Appeal are argumentative, narrative and full of conclusions. Now, Order 7 Rules (2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 stipulate that:
“(2) Where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated.
(3) The notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds upon which the Appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal without any argument or narrative and shall be numbered consecutively.”
It is not the law that every ground of appeal must be supported by particulars. In other words, there is no legal requirement to the effect that the particulars of a ground of appeal must be set out separately. Thus, if by the nature of the ground, the particulars can be read from the ground itself, such ground would be competent. See

Ministry of Works v. Tomas (Nig.) Ltd (2002) 2 NWLR (pt.752) 740; Ila Enterprises Ltd v. Umar Ali & Co. (Nig.) Ltd (2013) 15 NWLR (pt.1376) 191 and Dakolo v. Rewane-Dakolo & Ors (2011) LPELR – 915 (SC). I have looked at the five (5) Grounds of Appeal as contained in the Notice of Appeal at pages 526 – 546 of the Record of Appeal. I notice that all the Grounds of Appeal, though inelegantly drafted, are all supported by particulars.
It should be noted however, that, by sub-rule (3) of Order 7 Rule (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules (supra), a Ground of Appeal shall be devoid of narrations or arguments. It therefore means that, a ground of appeal must be clear, precise and succinct as to bring out the nature of the complaint of the Appellant. A ground of appeal shall be precise and devoid of confusion. In other words, a ground of appeal shall be lucid and clear enough for a just resolution of the appeal. Consequently, where the ground of appeal is imprecise, ambiguous, and argumentative and/or narrative, it will be fatal to the competence of such ground of appeal. See Nwosu v. PDP & Ors (2018) LPELR – 44386 (SC); Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdulraheem

(2009) All FWLR (pt.497) 1 and NRC v. Cudjoe (2008) 10 NWLR (pt.1095).
In the instant case, the entire Grounds of Appeal in this appeal are either argumentative or narrative. They do not give themselves to clear interpretation. They are imprecise, bogus and clearly argumentative. The complaint(s) of the Appellant are really unintelligent and cannot give themselves to easy resolution of the appeal. Therefore, for the reasons of the defects considered and determined in this Preliminary Objection, I am in agreement with learned counsel for the Respondent that, the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant on the 1st day of February, 2017 is defective and therefore incompetent. Thus, the Preliminary Objection raised and argued by the Respondent at pages 4 – 10 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument is meritorious. It is hereby upheld. Consequently, the Notice of Appeal is hereby struck out.

Having thus held a foray into the substantive appeal will be merely academic; and it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to occupy itself with academic issues.

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: In this appeal, my

brother Tsammani, JCA in concluding his work on the appeal said thus:-
In the instant case, the entire Grounds of Appeal in this appeal are either argumentative or narrative. They do not give themselves to clear interpretation. They are imprecise. The bogus and clearly argumentative. The complaint(s) of the Appellant are really unintelligent and cannot give themselves to easy resolution of the appeal. Therefore, for the reasons of the defects considered and determined in this Preliminary Objection, I am in agreement with learned counsel for the Respondent that, the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant on the 1st day of February, 2017 is defective and therefore incompetent. Thus the Preliminarily Objection raised and argued by the Respondent at pages 4 — 10 of the Respondent’s Brief of argument is meritorious. It is hereby upheld. Consequently, the Notice of Appeal is hereby struck out.

I noticed during the times this appeal came before us that the appellant is without legal education or training but was always insistent on carrying on proceedings himself even when the errors are so apparent and would not harbour any advice for proper legal

counsel. The result is now obvious. It has been a waste of time, his time, the Court and others.
I agree with the judgment and also strike out the notice of Appeal.

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have read before now the draft of the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI JCA. His Lordship had dealt exhaustively with the issues canvassed in the preliminary objection of the Respondent to this appeal. I agree with his Lordship that the objection has merit and should be sustained.

The notice of preliminary objection is premised on the following grounds:
“1. That there are no competent grounds to support the Notice of Appeal filed.
2. The Notice of Appeal in this appeal has been filed in breach of Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004.”
The law is settled that the Notice of Appeal is the substratum and spinal cord of an appeal, and where such notice is defective any proceeding conducted thereon is a nullity. It follows therefore that a valid Notice of Appeal is a sine qua non to a competent appeal. A Court of Appeal will thus have no

jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal based on a defective Notice of Appeal. See FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. DAIRO (2015) 6 NWLR (pt. 1454) 141, FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC vs. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) 15 NWLR (pt. 1216) 247; SHELIM VS. GOBANG (2009) 12 NWLR (pt. 1156) 435.
Section 24 (2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act provides for the time within which a litigant may give Notice of Appeal in a civil cause or matter. Pursuant to this provision, a litigant has fourteen days to file an appeal against an interlocutory decision and thirty days in respect of a final decision judgment.
In the instant appeal, the Notice of Appeal was filed outside the statutory period prescribed by S. 24(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act. The defect renders the Notice of Appeal incompetent as no leave was sought and none was granted for extension of time to file the appeal. A valid Notice of Appeal is a condition precedent for a competent appeal.
In the case of MADUKOLU & ORS VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 NSCC 374 the Supreme Court per Bairamian JSC held that a Court is competent when:
1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and

qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another.
2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
The instant Appellant who failed to give the Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed by law has failed to fulfill the condition precedent for a valid appeal. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear his appeal.
It is for the foregoing and for the further reasons given by my learned brother in the lead Judgment that I also hold that this appeal is devoid of merit and it is also dismissed by me.

Appearances:

…For Appellant(s)

O. Adebayo; Esq with him R. K. Muhammed – Ali; Esq, Goodnews Adedeji; Esq For Respondent(s)