Issues for Determination

The Appellant is right that a Plaintiff must raise question(s) for determination in an originating summons and ask for declaration of rights based on answers to the question – see Olley V. Tunji (supra), wherein this Court, per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was), observed –
For a Plaintiff to successfully approach the Court and for the Court to hear him and determine his complaint by way of Originating Summons procedure under the said Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, he must seek the determination of a question of construction, which relates to or arises from the provisions of the Electoral Act or the relevant Political Party Guidelines relating to nomination of candidates.- His reliefs(s) must be predicated on a determination of any question relating to the Electoral Act and/or relevant Party Guidelines on Nomination of Political Party candidates for Elections.

SHUAIBU LAU V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP] &

In the process of ascertaining whether arguments fall outside the issues raised and are rather flowing from the grounds of appeal, when the latter is the case, the Court will treat such a case as no brief was filed and the appeal would be struck out. Stated another way, where arguments in the appellant's brief are based on grounds of appeal instead of the issues for determination as formulated, such issues are disregarded by the Court. See UBA Plc v. Ogunsanya (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt.821) 111 at 124 per Akintan JCA (as he then was); Adehi v. Atega (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt.398) 658 at 666 per Uwais JSC (as he then was).It is to be noted that arguments are held to fall outside the issues raised when they are not related to any grounds of appeal. I rely on Kolawole v. Alberto (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 382 at 399. I cannot help but refer again to the Court of Appeal case in: UBA v Ogunsanya (supra) at P.124. "The effect of breach of the rules relating to brief writing that it does not necessarily affect the outcome of the appeal. Thus a bad, faulty or inelegant brief surely attracts adverse comments from the Court but it will not be regarded as amounting to no brief. The Court will not close its eyes to the facts of its existence. The Court will be bound to ensure that substantial justice is done to the parties in the case before it". See also Akpan v State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt.248) P.439 at 471, per Nnaemeka – Agu, JSC: "Briefs have been designed to help this Court and the Court of Appeal to expedite the disposal of appeals.... we come across poorly written briefs practically every day. Much as counsel have no excuse for producing poor briefs now, the fact they have done so will not discharge this Court from its duty of doing substantial justice to the parties who appear before it". In this case at hand, I am guided by what Oputa JSC stated in Obiora v. Osele (supra) at 302 where he stated the reason why the Supreme Court did not throw out the...