In Okewu v Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt.1305) 327, this Court held that Indian Hemp is a drug as contemplated in Section 11 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act. This is settled.
It is recognised that it is often difficult to distinguish between a ground of law and a ground which is of mixed law and facts. Over time, a general rule of thumb employed by Courts to determine the nature of a ground of appeal has evolved. Where the complaint is that the trial or appellate Court misunderstood the law or misapplied the law to the proved or admitted facts, it is a ground of law. Where the ground of appeal questions the evaluation of evidence before the application of the law, it is a ground of mixed law and fact. There is generally no difficulty in determining whether a ground of appeal is a question of fact. See: Odunukwe vs Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 125) 404; Metal Construction (W.A.) Ltd. vs Migliore (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 299; Ogbechie vs Onochie (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 23) 484; Anukam vs Anukam (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1081) 455.
The law is settled that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law upon which the case was decided. It is this principle that is binding on the parties and capable of being the subject of an appeal. The ratio decidendi constitutes the authority on which the case stands. See: N.A.B. LTD. V. B. ENG. (NIG.) LTD. (1995) 8 NWLR (PT.413) 257 AT 289 H; ABACHA V. FAWEHINMI (2000) 6 NWLR (PT.660) 228; ODUGBO V. ABU (2001) 14 NWLR (PT.732) 45. ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
That constitutes the trite principles of law, governing argument of appeals in this Court and in the Apex Court. See the cases of Sheidu Vs The State (2014) LPELR-23018 (SC); (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1429) 1; Ukwuoma Vs Okafor (2016) LPELR-41505 (CA); Fajebe & Anor Vs Opanuga (2019) LPELR-46348 (SC); North West Petroleum & Gas Co.
Ltd & Anor Vs Prince Chigozie Iloh & Ors (2021) LPELR-55509 (CA).” Of course, the law is trite, that though two or more grounds of appeal can be combined to generate an issue for determination of appeal, one ground of appeal cannot be split to donate different issues for determination of appeal. See again the case of North West Petroleum & Gas Co. Ltd & Anor Vs Iloh & Ors (2021) LPELR-55509 CA: “… he (Counsel) split many of the grounds of appeal to donate several issues for determination, in a manner quite offensive to the rules and procedure for arguing appeals.
The law is trite, that whereas Appellant can combine two or more grounds of appeal to generate an issue for the determination of appeal, he cannot split a ground of appeal to raise several issues for determination of the appeal. That is to say, that the moment an Appellant has distilled an issue from a given ground(s) of appeal, he cannot, thereafter, use the said (used) ground(s) of appeal to generate another issue for the determination of the appeal, as that would amount to the proliferation of issues. See the case of A.G.
Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd and Ors (2019) LPELR-47579 (CA), Phillips Vs Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC), Ugo Vs Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41. Of course, it is trite, that once Appellant has distilled an issue for determination of appeal from a given ground(s) of appeal, that ground (or grounds) of appeal ceases to be available to donate another issue for determination of the appeal. In that case of A. G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd & Ors (supra).” See also the case of Society BIC.
SA. & Ors Vs Charzin Industries Ltd (2014) LPELR – 22256 (SC), NACB Ltd Vs Ozoemelam (2016) LPELR – 26051 (SC). And in the case of Nabegu Co. Nig. Ltd Vs AMCON & Ors (2022) LPELR – 57294 CA, delivered on 4/4/2022, it was held: “It is also the law that Appellant cannot split a ground of appeal, to generate two or more issues for determination, and cannot lump many issues for determination, together, purporting same to distill from several grounds of appeal, also lumped together.
Appellant has to clearly specify which issue is distilled from which ground of appeal, before he can proceed to argue the issues, either singly or together.” PER MBABA, J.C.A.
Relying on a case without relating it to the facts that induced it, will amount to citing the case out of proper context. In other words, the importance of facts cannot be overemphasized, as the facts determine the fate of any case. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C