AUGUSTINE AKPALAUKWU NJEMANZE VS JOHN SHIMOBI NJEMANZE

CORAM

PARTIES

AUGUSTINE AKPALAUKWU NJEMANZE APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent/ plaintiff brought a case against the appellants/ defendants claiming their right to a certificate of occupancy, right to damages for trespass, and an injunction restraining the appellants/ defendants from trespassing. The trial court ruled in the favour of the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/ defendants aggrieved by this appealed to the court of appeal where the case was dismissed on the merit. The appellants/ defendants still aggrieved appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

None

ISSUES

None

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE OF LAW OR FACT

“This court, for quite long, has set out some of the criteria for distinguishing a ground of law from that of mixed law and fact. Some of those principles can be summarised in the following manner.
First is the thorough examination of the grounds of appeal in the case to see whether they reveal a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law, a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted.

Where a ground complains of a misunderstanding by the lower court of the law or misapplication of the; law to the facts already proved or admitted, it is a ground of law.

Where a ground of appeal questions the evaluation of facts before the application of the law, it is a ground of mixed law and fact.
A ground which raises a question of pure fact is a ground of fact.
Where the lower court finds that the particular events occurred although there is no admissible evidence before the court that the event did in fact occur, the ground is that of fact.

Where admissible evidence has been led, the assessment of that evidence is entirely for the court. If there is a complaint about the assessment of the admissible evidence, the ground is that of fact.

Where the lower court approached the constitution of a legal term of art in a statute on the erroneous basis that the statutory wording bears its ordinary meaning, the ground is that of law.

Where the lower court or tribunal applying the law to the facts in a process which requires the skill of a trained lawyer, this is a question of law.

Where the lower court reaches a conclusion which cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts as found, the appeal court will assume that there has been a misconception of the law. This is a ground of law.

Where the conclusion of the lower court is one of the possible resolutions but one which the appeal court would not have reached if seized of the issue, that conclusion is not an error in law.

Where the Court of Appeal finds such application to be wrong and decides to make its own findings such findings made by the Court of Appeal are issues of fact and not of law.

Where the Court of Appeal interferes in such a case and there is a further appeal to a higher court of appeal on the application of the facts, the grounds of appeal alleging such misdirection by the lower court of appeal is a ground of law not of fact.

A ground of appeal which complains that the decision of the trial court is against the evidence or weight of evidence or contains unresolved contradictions in the evidence of witnesses , it is purely a ground of fact (which requires leave for an appeal to a court of appeal or a further court of appeal)…..

It has been further decided by this court that in determining whether a ground of appeal includes questions of law alone or of mixed law and fact, both the grounds of law alone or mixed law and of fact” . Per Suleiman Galadima, JSC

CASES CITED

None

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT