Amaran V. Etf (2022)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
This Appeal No. SC.276/2014 is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 25-3-2014 in Appeal No. CA/A/671/2013 affirming the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja delivered on 11-12-2012 in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/429/2009.
Both sides have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows – appellant’s brief, respondent’s brief and appellant’s reply brief. The appellant’s brief raised two issues for determination as follows-
- Whether by the conduct of the Respondent, the respondent did not accept the start of date of the contract by the Appellant in their letters of 28th day of June, 2006?
- Whether the Appellant has shown a case for the payment of quantum meruit in respect of the contract?
The respondent’s brief adopted and argued the two issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief of argument.
I will determine this appeal on the basis of the two issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief.
The two issues did not question any part of the decision of the Court of Appeal. They are framed as abstract questions and do not allege any error or misdirection or raised any complain about any part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Whereas the two grounds of appeal complain of errors of law in particular parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the issues are framed as theoretical questions without reference to any part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal complained of in the grounds. An appeal against a judgment is to show that the judgment is not correct in some respect. The ground of appeal is a complain against the part of the judgment isolated and attacked therein. The issues for determination distilled from such grounds must relate to the complain in the grounds of appeal. An abstract or theoretical issue is incompetent and not valid for consideration in an appeal. Therefore, issues nos. 1 and 2 are incompetent and hereby struck out.
As it is, the two grounds of this appeal are abandoned as no issue have been distilled from them. They are hereby struck out.
There is a more fundamental problem in this appeal.
The appeal is against the Court of Appeal findings of facts concurring with the trial Court’s finding of fact that the appellant’s acceptance of the respondent’s offer was a counter-offer, that there is no evidence that the respondent accepted the counter-offer and that therefore there was no contract of retainership in existence between them. The two grounds of appeal are complains of facts. Therefore, by virtue of Section 233(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution, the leave of the Court of Appeal or of this Court to bring this appeal on facts or mixed law and fact ought to have been first sought for and obtained before the appeal was filed. No such leave was obtained by the appellant to bring this appeal.
As it is, the appeal is incompetent and is hereby struck out.
I make no order as to cost.