raised before it. In the case at hand the lower Court is under no obligation to consider other issues posed apart from the proof of appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt The non consideration of the sentence passed on the appellant by the lower Court, it is submitted, is a mere irregularity which does not vitiate findings of both Courts below. Referring to Onochie V. Odogolu (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt 317) 544 and 7up Bottling Co Ltd & 2 Ors v. Abiola & Sons Bottling Co (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt 730) 469, learned counsel to the respondent urges that we consider the lapse as an irregularity without more. On the whole, the appeal, he prays, be dismissed. It must outrightly be observed that the four issues the appellant distilled from his fifteen grounds of appeal are prolix. Indeed most of them are unnecessary and uncalled for. This Court has repeatedly frowned at this practice and still views it as poor advocacy. The success of an appeal, the Court has held in very many of its decisions, neither depends on the number or grounds of appeal nor the issues formulated from the grounds. In addition to the competence of the two, their substantiality is even more overriding. see G.K.F. Investment Nigeria Ltd V. Nigeria Communications Plc (2009) LPELR-7294 (SC) and Kupoluyi v. Phillips (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt 731) 736. The instant appeal questions the lower Court's affirmation of the trial Court's findings of fact, impression of the witnesses and the credibility attached to the witnesses, the Court's entire evaluation of evidence leading to the conviction and imposition of and the nature of prison term on the appellant. Certainly, the appellant does not require the fifteen grounds of appeal and the four issues to make bare his grudges and succeed in the appeal. See Sossa v. Fokpo (2001) 1