LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Interpretation of Constitution – Substantial Question of Law – Meaning
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In order to be substantial, the issue must be such that there may be some doubt or difference of opinion as to what the law is. When no such doubt exists, or the law is well established by a final Court of Appeal, or by an overwhelming consensus of judicial decisions, the mere application of it to a particular set of facts does not constitute a substantial question of law, however important the issue may be for the decision of the particular case.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Bamaiyi v. A.-G., Federation & Ors (2001) NLC-452000(SC) at p. 18; Paras A–C.
"In order to be substantial, the issue must be such that there may be some doubt or difference of opinion as to what the law is. When no such doubt exists, or the law is well established by a final Court of Appeal, or by an overwhelming consensus of judicial decisions, the mere application of it to a particular set of facts does not constitute a substantial question of law, however important the issue may be for the decision of the particular case."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A substantial question of law requires doubt or difference of opinion on what the law is. If the law is well settled by a final appellate court or overwhelming consensus, mere application to facts is not substantial—even if important to the case. The principle prevents appeals on settled points. The question must be one of law, not fact. It must be open to reasonable debate. The court considers whether the issue is novel, complex, or previously undecided. If the law is clear, no substantial question arises. The threshold is high. The purpose is to reserve appellate resources for genuine legal controversies, not routine application of settled principles.