APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL – Whether the leave of court is required where an appeal is hinged on grounds of law alone before an appeal can be filed


“…Sifting through the grounds of appeal alongside the particulars it is apparent that in ground 1, the grouse of the Appellant is the lack of jurisdiction of the Court below to grant a stay of execution of the garnishee order absolute, made by the trial Court. In respect to ground 2, the Appellant complains of the locus standi of the 1st Respondent to bring an application of stay of execution. In ground 3, the Appellant’s complaint is that the Court below committed an error in law, when it held that the trial Court failed to consider all issues and objections raised by the Respondents/Judgment debtors before delivering its Ruling. The grouse of the Appellant in ground 4, is that the Court below erred in holding that a garnishee order absolute, is not a completed act, and therefore, stayed its execution. Clearly, from the complaints which propelled this appeal, taken together with the particulars, there is no gainsaying that they are all grounds of law. It is a fact that to distinguish a ground of law from a ground of fact, is usually difficult but when the case on appeal has to be whether the grounds reveal a misunderstanding by the Court below of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, it is clearly a question of law. I refer to NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd. (2012) 17 N.W.L.R. (Part 1328) S.C. 148. From the foregoing, there is no foundation on which this preliminary objection can be anchored as the four grounds of appeal are grounds of law within the ambit of Section 233(2) of the CFRN 1999, as amended, for which no leave needs be sought for or obtained as appeals on such, are of right.” Per ABDU ABOKI, JSC in SANI v. KOGSHA & ORS (2021-LCER-40499-SC) (Pp 13 – 15; Paras F – A)

Add to LawKit (0)