LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Consistency of Case on Appeal — Party Cannot Put Up Different Case Without Leave
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The case of the appellants as argued in the Court of Appeal must be consistent with the case on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will not allow a party to put up a different case without leave.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Kwajaffa & Ors v. Bank of the North Ltd (2004) NLC-892000(SC) at p. 14; Paras D–E.
"The case of the appellants as argued in the Court of Appeal must be consistent with the case on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will not allow a party to put up a different case from the case it had put up at the Court of Appeal without leave."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party must be consistent in their case across appeal levels. The principle applies to appellate practice. Changing the case without leave is impermissible. The rule ensures fair notice. The court will strike out inconsistent arguments. The principle is well-established.