section 15-67-90 is not an “absolute bar,” we need not address Petitioners' issue as to whether this statute violates the due process clauses of our state and federal constitutions. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1; S.C. Const, art. I, § 3 (stating no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law). 9 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order based on section 15-67-90. Petitioners, however, failed to raise any arguments in their petition for rehearing or initial brief to this Court regarding the circuit court's ruling as to the doctrine of laches. Accordingly, we find the doctrine of laches is the law of the case and this Court is justified in affirming on that basis. See Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168, 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993) (<HOLDING>); see also Rule 242(d)(2), SCACR (“Only those
recognizing that a defendant may not raise one ground for objection at trial and argue a different ground on appeal holding an appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in support of its decision and may affirm on any ground on which additional factual findings are not required recognizing that where a decision is based on more than one ground the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case holding that our supreme court will not affirm on a factdependant ground not determined below holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised on appeal