LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Grounds of Appeal – Requirement of Leave for Grounds of Mixed Law and Fact or Fact Alone
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
As grounds of appeal are not grounds based on error of law alone, the appellant ought to have obtained the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to file them; since no leave was sought and obtained to file them they are incompetent and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain them.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Therefore, as both grounds 3 and 7 of the grounds of appeal are not grounds based on error of law alone, the appellant ought to have obtained the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to file them. Since no leave was sought and obtained to file them they are incompetent and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain them."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Leave is a jurisdictional requirement for appeals on mixed law/fact or pure fact grounds in certain contexts (typically from Court of Appeal to Supreme Court, or interlocutory appeals). Without leave: grounds are incompetent, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain them, and any decision on such grounds is void. Leave requirements serve: screening appeals involving fact re-examination (which appellate courts generally avoid), preventing frivolous factual appeals, and managing Supreme Court docket. Obtaining leave requires: formal application, demonstrating grounds have merit, and judicial authorization. The consequence of proceeding without required leave is severe: not merely procedural irregularity but jurisdictional defect rendering proceedings void. Appellants must: correctly classify their grounds (law versus mixed/fact), obtain leave before filing if required, or risk entire grounds being struck as incompetent. This strict approach maintains: appellate jurisdiction boundaries, leave requirement efficacy, and proper appellate function focusing on legal issues rather than fact re-examination.