Facts:

In 1999, the respondent purchased two tickets from the appellant for commercial air travel routed thus: from Lagos to Amsterdam, Netherlands onwards to London, UK then to Milan, Italy and from there back to Amsterdam before arriving in Lagos, Nigeria. On her return trip from Milan, the respondent was prevented from boarding the Amsterdam flight and instead, after several hours of delay was put on an Alitalia flight directly to Lagos. As a result of this development, the respondent missed some important business meetings and shopping she intended to carry out. After arrival in Lagos, she discovered that her luggage was not on the flight. She made a complaint to the appellant who subsequently returned one piece of the luggage to her.
The appellant could not find the second piece of luggage and after series of demands, the respondent filed a suit against the appellant at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division claiming among several reliefs the sum of $7,765.00 (Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Five US Dollars), £8,550.00 (Eight Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty pounds) and Lira 4,405,000.00 (Four Million, Four Hundred and Five Thousand Lira) alleged to be the cost of the items in the luggage and another sum of $1,838.25 or N187,501.00 being the cost of return air ticket including damages and other reliefs. After being served with the originating process, the appellant filed its defence and the matter proceeded to trial. The respondent opened her case and tendered evidence in support. The appellant however, failed to adduce evidence in support of its defence.
The defence was eventually closed and the court gave judgment in favour of the appellant granting the reliefs sought. The appellant was aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division urging the court to reverse the trial judge. The Court of appeal however, dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a fundamental defect in the brief of argument filed by the appellant for not being in conformity with the extant rules of the court. The court further held that the two issues formulated by the appellant were deemed abandoned. The appellant became further aggrieved and consequently filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Parties filed their briefs and the respondent incorporated a preliminary objection to the appeal on the ground that one of the grounds of appeal did not flow from the decision appealed against.
One of the issues for determination is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the arguments had been marshalled in a manner that is found inelegant.