Appeals (2099)
HELD:
"Ground 5, from whence the issue 4 was inter alia purportedly distilled, complained that the lower Court "erred in law in affirming the conviction of the Appellant on the ground that his counsel at the trial Court did not challenge or confront the prosecution with certain facts testified to at the trial".
HELD:
"The attitude of this Court to the concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts below is no longer in doubt.
HELD:
"Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal is not challenging the record of appeal on the basis of incompleteness or inaccuracy.
HELD:
"The facts as now reviewed definitely justify the intervention of the Supreme Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below on the question of who between appellant and respondent proved better title.
HELD:
"In this case, appellant complained to the Court below about wrong evaluation of EXHIBIT "C" and "D" by the trial Court.
HELD:
"The guiding principles for the grant of an application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal and for extension of time to appeal is that the Applicant must show good and substantial reasons for the lateness in bringing the application.