APPELLATE PRACTICE — Competence of Appeal on Grounds of Law
Ratio Decidendi
African Continental Bank Plc v. Obmiami Brick & Stone (Nig.) Ltd. (1993) NLC-2251992(SC):
"It is not how a ground is christened that matters but what it complains about. I have examined carefully the three grounds of appeal and in my respectful view, they all raise issues of law. They do not relate to an examination of the manner in which the court below exercised its discretion to grant or refuse leave to appeal, but rather complain of a misconception of the application before it. This, in my respectful view, would amount to an error of law."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that courts must look beyond the formal labeling of grounds of appeal to ascertain their true nature. The substance rather than the form determines whether grounds raise questions of law or fact. When grounds complain that the lower court fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the application before it, this constitutes an error of law amenable to appellate review. The principle prevents parties from being denied appellate remedies based on technical mislabeling of grounds while ensuring that substantive legal errors can be corrected on appeal.