PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Proliferation of Issues for Determination occurs when a party to a case raises more than one issue  from a single ground of appeal. Where there is a proliferation of Issues for Determination, such an issue is rendered incompetent and will therefore be struck out.

This principle of law has been traversed in the recent case of UBABUIKE V G.T.B PLC (2025)8 NWLR (PT.1993) 427.

The summary of what transpired in the case vis-a-vis proliferation of Issues for Determination was that the appellant, as a customer to the 1st respondent, applied for and was granted a loan of N10million in April 2009 which he fully utilised. Before repaying the loan, he filed a suit against the respondents at the trial court in which he claimed several reliefs relating to the loan transaction. The 1st respondent filed a statement of defence and counter-claim to the suit and the matter proceeded to trial. In its judgment, the trial court struck out the appellant’s suit on the ground that the writ of summons used to initiate it was incompetent and therefore deprived the trial court of its  adjudicate over the suit. However, the trial court went on to decide the merit of the case. It dismissed the appellant’s claims and entered judgment in favour of the 1st respondent as set out in the counter-claim.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on 8 grounds of appeal from which he formulated 13 issues for determination without indicating the ground or grounds of appeal from which each of the issues was derived or formulated.

After hearing the appeal before it, the Court of Appeal raised the issue of proliferation of the issues for determination by the appellant as the issues outnumbered the appellant’s grounds of appeal, and that the grounds from which each was formulated was not indicated. The Court of Appeal held the issues for determination incompetent and held that its jurisdiction to adjudicate over the appeal on the merit, even as an intermediate appellate court, was thereby affected. So, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal. However, one of the Justices of the Court of Appeal that wrote and delivered a concurring judgment on the appeal, did not sit as a member of the panel of Justices that heard the appeal in open court.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on a lone ground of appeal, and argued that his constitutional right to fair hearing was breached by the Court of Appeal when it struck out the appeal without considering the merit of the issues raised by the appellant. And the respondents answered that the Court of Appeal rightly struck out the appeal on the ground of appellant’s proliferation of issues for determination. The 2nd respondent further responded that since the appellant did not tie the proliferated issues for determination to any of the grounds of appeal, the issues were incompetent and the Court of Appeal rightly struck out the appeal. 

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, held that: “Proliferation of issues for determination occurs where a party raises more than one issue for determination from a ground of appeal. In other words, proliferation of issues occurs when two issues are raised from one ground of appeal. Where there is a proliferation of issues, the issues are rendered incompetent. The attendant consequences that the issues are liable to be struck out. In this case, the appellant filed 8 grounds of appeal from which he formulated 13 issues for determination. And that amounted to proliferation of issues. Thus, the Court of Appeal rightly struck out the issues for being incompetent. Consequently, the appellant’s assertion that he was denied the right to  a fair hearing due to the failure of the Court of Appeal to consider the 13 issues for determination untenable. [Christian v. Innocent (2023) 13 NWLR(Pt.1900) 183 referred to.] (Pp. 465-468, paras. D-E”.

The court clarified that the number of issues should be proportional and directly related to the grounds of appeal, ensuring clarity and fairness in appellate proceedings.

The rule against proliferation of issues is to the effect that a party cannot distil more than one issue from a single ground of appeal though counsel is at liberty to formulate fewer issues than the number of grounds of appeal.   

Proliferation of issues of for determination is highly detested and discouraged in a court of law as it does not only erode the credibility of the Counsel but will deem the suit filed to be struck out. 

About the Author:

Yunus Anas Ismail is a member of the Directorate of Research and Litigation, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached via: 08167034933.