I. G. Ibhalum v. O. E. Chidozie & Ors. [2026]

Introduction

A government house, two competing letters of offer, and — twenty years later — an appeal that never actually got heard on its merits, because the document bringing it to court fell apart under its own weight. The Supreme Court unanimously struck out the appeal.

Facts of the Case

In 2005, the Federal Government advertised certain government houses in Abuja for sale to civil servants. Both the appellant and the 1st respondent bid successfully. A letter of offer went to the appellant first, on 30th October 2005, which he accepted and paid for in full. Then, in June 2006, a second letter of offer for the same property went to the 1st respondent instead — the appellant's own offer having been withdrawn in the meantime, on the basis that the 1st respondent was senior to him at the time of the sale.

Aggrieved, the appellant sued at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, and won. The 1st respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the trial court's judgment. There were actually two separate appeals arising from the matter, but the Court of Appeal struck out one of them as incompetent, leaving only the other to be decided.

The appellant, now on the losing end, appealed further to the Supreme Court — but the way he drafted his notice of appeal would end up mattering more than anything in the underlying property dispute.

The 1st Respondent's Preliminary Objection

At the hearing, the 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the appeal's competence on two grounds: first, that the appellant had improperly folded an appeal against two separate decisions into a single notice, without ever seeking the court's leave to do so; and second, that the appellant had listed what were really just particulars — explanatory detail supporting a ground of appeal — and presented them as if they were freestanding grounds of appeal in their own right.

Resolution of the Question for Determination

On what makes a notice of appeal foundational, the Court described it in blunt architectural terms: a notice of appeal is the document that sets an appeal in motion in the first place, and any defect in it goes to the very root of the appeal, stripping the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear it at all. Where the foundation is defective, whatever is built on top of it cannot stand.

On filing one notice for two decisions, the Court accepted this is sometimes permissible — a party can bring one notice of appeal covering two decisions delivered in the same proceedings, or file separate notices for each. But this is never automatic; it requires the court's leave first, since each decision is its own distinct thing procedurally, and the appellate machinery has to be properly triggered for each one unless the court agrees to let them travel together. Here, nothing on the record showed the appellant had ever sought or obtained that leave — though since the Court of Appeal had already struck out one of the two underlying appeals, this particular complaint had, by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, become somewhat academic on its own.

On the distinction between a ground of appeal and its particulars, the Court was equally direct. A ground of appeal is the actual complaint — a concise statement of the error the lower court is said to have committed. Particulars exist only to explain and sharpen that complaint; they cannot stand on their own, and they certainly cannot be promoted into grounds of appeal in their own right. Compounding this, the number of issues for determination drawn from an appeal should never exceed the number of competent grounds actually raised. Here, the appellant had treated his particulars as though each were an independent ground — an approach the Court called plainly wrong and contrary to settled appellate practice.

On what happens once the grounds themselves are found defective, the Court explained the relationship this way: particulars only exist because a ground exists for them to explain — take the ground away, and there's nothing left for the particulars to be attached to, so they fall along with it. Looking closely at what the appellant had actually filed, the Court found it wasn't really a set of distinct grounds at all — it was a scattering of supporting detail, narrative complaint about how the evidence had gone, and general grievance, all labelled as if each one stood as its own independent ground. None of it identified the kind of specific legal error a proper ground of appeal is supposed to point to. Since none of the purported grounds were competent, none of them could support any issue for determination either.

On whether the Court would forgive this on the basis that substantial justice shouldn't bow to technicality, the Court acknowledged that principle is real — and noted that had this particular defect stood entirely alone, it might not, in a different case, have been enough on its own to sink the appeal. But that principle has limits: it protects against form triumphing over substance, not against a notice of appeal so fundamentally incoherent that the court genuinely cannot make out what's actually being complained of.

Tukur, J.S.C., delivering the leading judgment, added a pointed observation on what's expected of counsel drafting these documents: appellate judges have limited hours in the day, and spending them trying to untangle a poorly assembled filing takes time away from cases that actually deserve it. A court isn't in the business of filling gaps a lawyer left behind, or reading between the lines to work out what point was probably intended. Every document placed before an appellate court needs to stand on its own — plain, organised, and free of the kind of clutter that leaves a judge unable to pin down what's actually being argued. Where a notice of appeal is so tangled that no competent ground can be made out at all, rewriting or tidying it up on the party's behalf isn't something the court will do — it simply gets struck out.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the appellant's notice of appeal as incompetent, and, with no valid notice left standing, struck out the appeal in its entirety.

Key Takeaways

A notice of appeal is the foundation of the entire appeal. A defect in it doesn't just weaken the appeal — it strips the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear it at all.
Bringing two decisions under one notice of appeal requires the court's leave first. It's permitted, but never automatic.
Particulars of a ground of appeal cannot be dressed up as grounds themselves. They exist to explain a complaint, not to multiply it.
Where the grounds collapse, everything built on them — including the issues for determination — collapses too.
Courts won't reconstruct a badly drafted process on a party's behalf. Clarity in drafting isn't a stylistic preference; it's what keeps a document capable of being heard at all.

In Practice

The line between a ground of appeal and its particulars trips up more filings than it should, and this case is a useful checklist moment before any notice of appeal goes out the door: does each numbered "ground" disclose an actual, distinct legal error, or is it really explanatory detail that belongs underneath a ground rather than standing beside it as one? Where a matter genuinely involves two separate decisions from the same proceedings, building in the extra step of seeking leave to consolidate them into a single notice — rather than assuming it's permitted — avoids handing the other side a free preliminary objection before the real dispute is ever reached.

Search This Blog

Nigeria Case Law