Leave of Court

It is also settled that a point raised for the first time in this Court can only be argued with the leave of the Court because this Court as an appellate Court only has jurisdiction to correct the errors of the Court below and to know in what respect it can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to correct any errors of the Court below – see Director, SSS v. Agbakoba {1999) 3 NWLR (Pt 595) 314 SC.

This apart, the general rule is that a party cannot, and will not be allowed to raise fresh issues at the appellate Court without leave of 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.