Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
TANKO AMADU J.A
(1) By its ruling dated 19th March 2018, the High Court (Financial and Economic Crime Division) delivered itself as follows:-
“In the current circumstances, there is no question that this court acquitted the Respondent/Applicant on all the charges brought against him on the 18th of October 2017. In such a case, by the provisions of Act 504, this court has no discretion than to release the funds/account frozen by it”. The application is therefore granted by it.
(2) By notice filed to this court on 19/3/2019, the Applicant/ Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) appealed against the ruling on one ground of appeal formulated and set out as follows:- “The ruling is in error of law”.
(3) In the said notice, the Appellant expressed an intention to file an additional ground of appeal upon receipt of the full record of proceedings. We need to place on record that at the time this appeal was heard and reserved for judgment, no such additional ground had been filed nor was leave sought from the Court below or this court to amend the sole ground of appeal set out.
(4) In paragraph 4 of the said notice, the Appellant sought reliefs against the Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) as follows:-
“(a)This Court of Appeal should set aside the order of the Lower
Court discharging freezing order and releasing the tainted
funds to the Respondent herein.
(b) An order reinstating the freezing order pending
determination of this appeal in the Court of Appeal”.
(5) We notice that there is a clear misconception by the Appellant’s counsel in the endorsement of relief (b) above by which the Appellant sought an interlocutory relief pending appeal. The said relief therefore does not belong to the notice of appeal but in any prior interlocutory application the Appellant ought to have filed pending the determination of the appeal itself.
(6) Having said that, we further notice from our examination of the sole ground of appeal on which this appeal has been anchored, a clear violation of the mandatory rules of this court which renders the ground improper, inadmissible and therefore unarguable.
(7) It is provided pursuant to Rules 8(4),(5) of C.I.19 (as amended) as follows:-
(4) “Where the grounds of an appeal allege misdirection or error
in law, particulars of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated.
(5)The grounds of appeal shall set out concisely and under
distinct heads the grounds upon which the