"In determining whether a ground of appeal includes questions of law alone or of facts or mixed law and facts, it is necessary to thoroughly examine both the ground of appeal and its particulars provided, in order to determine whether it is a ground of law alone, or of mixed law and fact. This is because mere labelling of a ground of appeal as one of "law? or "error in law? or "misdirection? may not necessarily be so, as it could be a misnomer in actual sense. The difference between a ground of law and a ground of mixed law and facts can be narrow. See UBA vs. Stahlbau GMBH & Co. (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 374; Ogbechie vs. Onochie (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 23) 484; Njemanze vs. Njemanze (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 376; Abdul vs. C.P.C (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 298; N.N.P.C vs. Famfa Oil Ltd. (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328).
The Courts have very often confessed the difficulty in distinguishing a ground of law from a ground of mixed law and fact. A Court has a duty to do a thorough examination of the grounds of appeal filed. The main purpose of the examination will be to find out whether from the grounds of appeal, it is evident that the lower Court misunderstood the law and whether the Court misapplied the law to the facts which are already proved or admitted.
In any of these two instances, the ground will qualify a ground of law. On the other hand, if the ground complains of the manner in which the lower Court evaluated the facts before applying the law, the ground is of mixed law and fact. The determination of grounds of facts is much easier.
Thus, it is the essence of the ground, the main grouse or the reality of the complaint embedded in that name that determines what any particular ground involves. It is neither its cognomen nor its designation as "error of law" that determines the essence of a ground of appeal. Abidoye vs. Alawode (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 709) 463;N.E.P.A vs.Eze (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 709) 606; Ezeobi vs. Abang (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.672) 230; Ojukwu vs. Kaine (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 516; U.B.A. vs.Stahlbau GMBH & Co. (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 374; Ojemen vs. Momodu(1983) 3 SC 173."
Per BDLIYA, J.C.A IN TUDUNWADA & ANOR v. FRN CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44288(CA)
