LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Additional Grounds of Appeal — Principles Governing Leave to Argue
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Leave to argue additional grounds is not the same as leave to raise new issues; the rule against raising new issues on appeal is not inflexible—where the question involves substantial points of law and justice demands, the court may entertain it to prevent miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Eze v. A.G., Rivers State (2001) NLC-841995(SC) at p. 47; Paras B–D.
"Leave to argue additional grounds is not the same as leave to argue and urge issues not raised in the Court. But the rule that an Appellant will not be allowed to raise on appeal a question not canvassed in the court below is not an inflexible and rigid rule. It is subject to the demand of justice. Thus where the question involves substantial points of law, either substantive or procedural, the court may entertain the appeal all the same and prevent an obvious miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Leave to argue additional grounds differs from leave to raise entirely new issues not canvassed below. The rule against raising new issues on appeal is flexible, not rigid. Where a substantial point of law is involved and justice demands, the court may entertain the new issue to prevent obvious miscarriage of justice. The court considers the importance of the legal question, whether the opposing party is prejudiced, and whether the facts are fully before the court. The principle balances procedural finality with substantive justice. Pure legal issues are more readily allowed. The court has discretion to depart from the general rule in exceptional circumstances.
