LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Grounds of Appeal – Non-Conclusiveness of Counsel’s Classification
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The classification of grounds of appeal by learned counsel for the appellant as grounds of law or as grounds based on mixed law and fact or on fact is not conclusive; the court concerned with the determination must, in giving due consideration to the matter, ensure that the grounds in question are really grounds of law, grounds based on mixed law and fact or on fact, as the case may be.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"the classification of grounds of appeal by learned counsel for the appellant as grounds of law or as grounds based on mixed law and fact or on fact is not conclusive. The court concerned with the determination of the question, must, in giving due consideration to the matter, ensure that the grounds of appeal in question are really grounds of law, grounds based on mixed law and fact or on fact, as the case may be."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces Principle 387. Counsel’s characterization of grounds (as law, mixed, or fact) doesn’t bind courts. Courts must: independently examine grounds, assess their actual nature, and classify them correctly regardless of counsel’s labels. Counsel cannot: make factual grounds “legal” through labeling, avoid leave requirements through mischaracterization, or control jurisdiction through nomenclature. Courts’ independent classification duty ensures: proper procedures apply (leave where required), jurisdiction is properly invoked, and appellate review follows appropriate standards. The court must “give due consideration”—carefully examine ground substance, assess what’s actually challenged, and determine true nature through analysis, not reliance on labels. This prevents: strategic mischaracterization, procedural manipulation, and incorrect application of appellate rules. The principle protects appellate jurisdiction and procedural integrity by requiring courts to look beyond labels to substance, ensuring grounds are treated according to their actual nature rather than counsel’s preferred characterization.