“The appeal is against the Court of Appeal findings of facts concurring with the trial Court’s finding of fact that the appellant’s acceptance of the respondent’s offer was a counter-offer, that there is no evidence that the respondent accepted the counter-offer and that therefore there was no contract of retainership in existence between them. The two grounds of appeal are complains of facts. Therefore, by virtue of Section 233(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution, the leave of the Court of Appeal or of this Court to bring this appeal on facts or mixed law and fact ought to have been first sought for and obtained before the appeal was filed. No such leave was obtained by the appellant to bring this appeal. As it is, the appeal is incompetent and is hereby struck out.” Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC in AMARAN v. ETF (2022-LCER-46527-SC) (Pp 2 – 3; Paras F – C)