LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Fresh Points on Appeal — When Refusal to Grant Leave Constitutes Error
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the purpose of raising a fresh point is to challenge the interpretation of a statute that was the basis of the trial court's decision, it is in the interest of justice to grant leave; refusal to do so may constitute an error.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Eze v. A.G., Rivers State (2001) NLC-841995(SC) at p. 35; Paras C–E.
"It is indisputable that the purpose of raising the issue is to demonstrate and for a determination whether the learned trial Chief Judge and the Court below were right in their interpretation of section 1 of Decree No. 90 of 1979. In such a situation it is in the interest of justice, not only desirable, but also necessary to afford the party raising the issue, the opportunity to do so."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When a fresh point on appeal challenges the interpretation of a statute that formed the basis of the trial court’s decision, it is in the interest of justice to grant leave. Refusing leave in such circumstances may constitute an error. The appellate court should not allow technical procedural bars to prevent review of potentially erroneous statutory interpretation that determined the outcome. The principle ensures that substantial justice prevails over procedural rigidity. The fresh point need not have been raised below if it arises from the judgment itself. The court considers the importance of the legal issue and the potential for miscarriage of justice. Leave should be liberally granted for pure legal issues.
