Issues of Facts

Thus, appeals on facts, or mixed law and facts are not primarily within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 233 of the Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal. The only circumstances appeals from the Court of Appeal can be heard as of right are those circumstances set out in Sub-section (2) thereof. Any ground of appeal not falling within the scope of Section 233(2) of the Constitution, particularly grounds of appeal complaining about facts, or mixed law and facts against the decision of the Court of Appeal (the Court below) shall only lie to this Court upon leave of the Court below or this Court first sought and granted. See S.233(3) of the Constitution.
From a long line of decided cases, and it is now settled, that this Court is not a Court of fact in which appeals to it on facts or mixed law and facts lie as of right. It should now be clear to every appellate lawyer that the purpose of Section 233(3) of the Constitution requiring that appeals on facts, or mixed law and facts shall lie to this Court only upon leave first sought and obtained, is that such appeals shall lie to, and be heard by this Court only on exceptional circumstances. After all, on facts or mixed law and facts, it should be assumed correctly too that the trial Court or the Court below are well grounded. Therefore, upon concurrent findings of fact, the appellant is enjoined to show exceptional circumstances why his appeal on facts, or mixed law and facts should be heard.

A ground of appeal does not qualify as a ground of law simply on the basis of its been so called. The determining factor in assessing whether or not a ground of appeal is one of law or of mixed law and facts or of facts alone is the complaint for which the ground had been employed. The type of complaint an appellant set out to make is invariably deciphered from an examination of the ground itself. Where the ground of appeal is based on a complaint of errors emanating from a conclusion or undisputed facts, the ground is a ground of law. If the errors complained of are founded on disputed facts and by the complaint, the correctness of the ascertained facts is being challenged, the ground is one of mixed law and fact. Where the trial Court is asked to exercise its discretion and the complaint in the ground of appeal relates to the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers, the ground would be one of mixed law and fact. In the instant case, the facts disclosed in the disputed grounds of appeal are not in contention. They are no longer in dispute as they have been settled. What, is in dispute is the law applicable to those sets of facts. I am of the firm view that the three grounds, subject of the objection are grounds of law that do not require the leave of this Court. See UBA Ltd v Stahibau GMBH (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 374; ACB Ltd v Obmiami Brick & Stone Ltd (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 294) 399; Metal Construction (W.A) Ltd v Migliore(1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 299; Ifediorah v Ume (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 5; Ogbechie v Onochie (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 23) 484; Nwadike v Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718.