LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Court of Appeal — Discretion to Grant Leave to Argue Fresh Points — When Supreme Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will rarely interfere with the Court of Appeal's discretion to grant leave to argue fresh points unless the exercise of discretion is manifestly wrong, arbitrary, reckless, or injudicious.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Eze v. A.G., Rivers State (2001) NLC-841995(SC) at p. 14; Paras C–D.
"This Court in its appellate jurisdiction will very rarely interfere with the exercise of its discretion by the lower court except where such exercise is based on extraneous issues or where the exercise of such discretion is not bona fide. The grant of leave to argue points of law as denoted in the two additional grounds of appeal is discretionary, but as earlier point out, the discretion has to be exercised both judicially and judiciously and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such decision of a lower court unless the exercise of such discretion is 'manifestly wrong arbitrary, reckless or injudicious.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The grant or refusal of leave to argue fresh points on appeal is discretionary. The Supreme Court will not interfere unless the lower court’s discretion was exercised manifestly wrong, arbitrarily, recklessly, or injudiciously. Mere disagreement with the decision is insufficient. The appellant must show that the lower court considered extraneous matters, acted in bad faith, or reached an unreasonable decision. The principle respects the role of intermediate appellate courts. The Supreme Court will not substitute its own discretion lightly. The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate clear abuse of discretion. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases.
