An Igbo adage says: “a cock that is taken to the house of a native doctor for the propitiation of the gods without the accompaniment of tubers of yam, kolanuts and a keg of palm wine, can never be accepted by the gods.” In a similar vein, a ground of facts filed at the Supreme Court or in any other appellate court for that matter, which ground of facts is not accompanied by a leave of court, can never be accepted by the Supreme Court or any other appellate court as the case may be.

The Supreme Court has always stated the difficulty associated with differentiating a ground of law from a ground of facts. This point is clearly illustrated in Global West Vessel Specialist Nig Ltd vs. Attorney General of the Federation (2017) JSCNLR (Vol. 1) 325 at 332 where the Supreme Court stated inter alia: It is trite law that it is difficult to distinguish a ground of law from a ground of facts. However, it is only when one is involved in assessing the practical applications of the guiding principles to the classification of grounds of appeal by legal practitioners that the magnitude of this problem becomes apparent. It is indeed arduous.