Yunusa Umar Gunda V. University Of Maiduguri (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant as plaintiff instituted suit No. FHC/MG/CS/70/2005 at the Federal High Court, Maiduguri Division, (herein referred to as the lower court) against the respondent (as defendant) by a writ of Summons which he sought the following reliefs:

“Whereof the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant:

(a) A Declaration that the purported termination of the Plaintiff’s Appointment with the Defendant is against the Defendant’s rules and regulations, illegal, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

(b) An Order reinstating the Plaintiff back to his position as a Senior Assistant Registrar with the Defendant.

(c) An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff all his outstanding entitlements from the purported date of termination of his Appointment till judgment is delivered including his withheld salaries during the period of suspension.

(d) One Million Naira (N1, 000.000) damages for wrongful termination of the Plaintiff’s Appointment with the Defendant.

(e) Costs of the suit.”

The facts upon which the appellant’s case was predicated are as contained in paragraphs 1 – 27 of the statement of claim which are on pages 3 to 7 of the record of appeal. The respondent denied the claims of the appellant in an Amended Statement of defence which are on pages 184 to 186 on the record of appeal. Pleadings were filed and exchanged. Issues joined, and the case went to trial whereat the parties called witnesses who testified on their behalf.

Documents were tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibits. Learned Counsel addressed the Court. On the 30th of January, 2012, the learned trial judge delivered his judgment dismissing all the reliefs sought by the appellant. Dissatisfied with the judgment he filed a Notice of appeal on the 13th of March, 2012 consisting of 12 grounds of appeal.

The appellant’s brief of argument was deemed filed on the 10th of February, 2014 wherein 4 Issues were distilled from the 12 grounds of appeal. The respondent filed brief of argument on the 24th of February, 2014, wherein 4 Issues were formulated from the 12 grounds of appeal.

An appellant’s Reply brief was filed on the 11th of March, 2014. The appeal was heard on the 20th of May, 2014, whereat, learned Counsel to the parties adopted their respective brief of argument. Sangei Esq. urged the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower Court and enter judgment for the appellant per his claims at the lower Court. Bello Esg. of learned Counsel to the respondent, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

The Issues distilled out of the 12 grounds of appeal in the briefs of argument are like identical twins which can hardly be distinguished. The resolution of any of the sets of Issues in the briefs of argument would also resolve the other. The law is trite, in the hearing and determination of an appeal, an appellate Court has discretion to either adopt the Issues formulated in the briefs of the parties, or reframe or restructure them and even where desirable formulate new Issue(s) which may be entirely different from those contained in the briefs.

However, the Issues framed to be resolved in an appeal must be based on or related to the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant or the cross-appellant, if any. See PSHSDM v. GOSHWE (2013) 10 NWLR Pt. 1241 P. 163 @ 181; Lafunde v. Lafijin (1989) 3 NWLR Pt. 101 P. 1775 Unity Bank Plc. vs. Bonari (2008) 7 NWLR Pt. 1036 P. 37 and Uko v. Mbaba (2001) 4 NWLR Pt. 704 P. 460.