LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Question of Fact — Undisputed Facts — When Inference Becomes Question of Law
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Undisputed facts lead to a question of law only where there are authoritative predetermined rules of law that govern the conclusion from such facts; otherwise, the court is entitled to bring its moral judgment to bear.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Metal Construction (West Africa) Ltd v. Migliore (1990) NLC-2511985(SC) at p. 14; Paras A–C.
"I do not think that in every case where the facts in issue are undisputed, the inevitable inference will result in a question of law. Undisputed facts will lead to a question of law where there are authoritative predetermined rules of law which govern the conclusion from such facts. The Court was not in the instant case bound on the facts before it, to answer the question entirely in accordance with any rule of law. It is entitled to bring its moral judgment to bear on the question and to determine the matter according to the justice of the situation."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Not every inference from undisputed facts is a question of law. An inference becomes a question of law only when predetermined legal rules compel a specific conclusion from those facts. If the court has discretion to apply moral judgment or equity, the inference remains factual or discretionary. The classification affects whether leave to appeal is required. Pure legal inferences are appealable as of right; factual or discretionary inferences require leave. The court examines whether the law provides a fixed rule for the conclusion. If the court must weigh circumstances and exercise judgment, the issue is not purely legal. The principle prevents the misclassification of discretionary decisions as questions of law.
