Ground of Law

Where the ground/s of appeal do not come within the preview of Section 233(2) of the Constitution leave must be obtained. That is to say leave must be obtained before grounds of appeal on mixed law and facts or facts can be said to be competent.
In NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 635) p.204. I observed that the difference between a ground of law and a ground of mixed law and facts can be narrow. Labeling a grounds of appeal error of law, or misdirection may not necessarily be so. The appellation is irrelevant in determining whether a ground of appeal is of law or mixed law and fact. For the correct classification of ground of law or mixed law and facts or facts the Court should examine the ground and their particulars and identify the substance of the appeal. At the end of such an exercise whether a ground of appeal is of law or mixed law and fact would be resolved. A ground on facts is much easier to identify. See
Ogbechie & ors v. Onochie & ors (1986) 1 NSCC p.443
Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) p. 718
In Ogbechie & ors v. Onochie & ors (supra).
This Court adopted the explanation and the way to identify grounds of appeal by the authors of the Law Quarterly Review Vol. 100 of October 1984.
The authors said:
1. If the Tribunal purports to find that particular events occurred although it is seised of no admissible evidence that the events did not in fact occur, it is a question of law. But where admissible evidence has been led, its assessment is entirely for the Tribunal, in other words, it is a question of fact.
2. If the Tribunal approached the construction of a legal term art in a Statute on the erroneous basis that the statutory wording bears its ordinary meaning, it is a question of law.
3. If the Tribunal approaches the construction of a statutory word or phrase bearing an ordinary meaning on the erroneous basis that it is a legal term of art, it is a question of law.
4. If the Tribunal, though correctly treating a statutory word or phrase as a legal term of art, errs in elucidation of the word or phrase, it is a question of law.
5. If the Tribunal errs on its conclusion (that is, in applying the law to the facts) in a case where this process requires the skill of a trained lawyer, it is error of law.
6. If in a case where a conclusion can as well be drawn by a layman (properly instructed on the law) as by a lawyer, the Tribunal reaches a conclusion which cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts as found, in that event, the superior Court has no option but to assume that there has been some misconception of the law. But the issue may admit of more than one possible resolution. The inferior Tribunal's conclusion may be one of the possible resolutions; yet it may be a conclusion which the superior Court (has it been seised of the issue) would not have reached. Nevertheless, the inferior Tribunal does not err in law. The matter is one of degree, and a superior Court with jurisdiction to correct only errors of law will not intervene.
A ground of appeal which complains of a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted is a ground of law.
A ground of appeal which questions the evaluation of facts before the application of the law, is a ground of mixed law and fact. If the ground of appeal complains that the judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence is a ground of fact. See NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd. (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 535) p.204.

UMANAH JNR v. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION:LGC(1/7/2016)C-D