"Though the two sets of issues are focused on the same substance, those formulated by the Respondent are concise and brief but for the subtle objection taken to them by the Appellant who contended that the Respondent is guilty of prolixity having formulated issues one and two from ground two which offends the rules of Court. See IWUOHA v. NIPOST LTD (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 822) 308 which held thus "Prolixity of issues formulated is not a merit as it is more likely to obscure the core issues to be determined. Multiplicity of issues tends to reduce most of them to trifles. Issues formulated must have the content and character of issues and should be based on substantial law or facts rather than on numerous trifling slips. Appeals are not won on large number or quantity but quality of the content of grounds of appeal and issues." The Respondent formulated two issues from ground 2 and those issues must be discountenanced being excess load on the grounds of appeal. That is the most severe punishment the party can suffer in such situations, see IKA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA v. MBA (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1049) 676. Consequently, the issues put forward by the Respondent must be discarded."

Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. IN IHEAKAM v. FBN CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43545(CA)