SAIDI OGUNDIMU & 3 ORS V BELLO KASUNMU & ORS
(2006) LCN/3391(SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Friday, June 16, 2006
Case Number:SC. 381/2001
JUSTICES:
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BETWEEN
APPELLANTS
SAIDI OGUNDIMU & 3 ORS[For and on behalf of themselves and the Ogundimu Family of Ota]
AND
RESPONDENTS
1. BELLO KASUNMU[For Bello Kasunmu Fabolude Family]
2. ALHAJI LATEEF BURAIMO[For Seriki Musa family]
3. PEPESILE OGUNJUWON[For Ogunjuwon family]
4. BELLO ESORUN[For Banjoko Esorun family]
5. ADENIJI ADEKUNLE[For Arifania family]
6. ALHAJI ADIDATU ELEGBA[For Imoru family]
7. PRINCE ASHIMIU ISIAKA & 5 ORS[For themselves and all other members of the Olofin of Isheri Chieftaincy family]
8. PRINCE SUBERU AINA AKO & ORS[For themselves and on behalf of members of Ojo Seriki/Kudoro Aperin family of Ota]
RATIO
EXTENSION OF TIME: EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A COURT IN GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
“This court would readily exercise its discretion to extend the periods prescribed for doing an act if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the failure by a party to do the act within the period prescribed was caused by the negligence or inadvertence of his counsel.” Per Bello, JSC in Bowaje V. Adediwura . PER G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC
COURT: DISCRETION THAT A TRIAL JUDGE POSSESSES
“The discretion conferred on the trial judge is unfettered but there is a right of appeal, and, to quote from Lord Simon’s speed) in Blunt V. Blunt [1943] A.C. 517 at p.526
APPEAL: GROUND OF APPEAL
‘If it can be shown that the court acted under a misapprehension of fact in that it cither gave weight to irrelevant or unproved matters or omitted to take into account matters that are relevant, there would, in my opinion, be ground for an appeal. In such a case the exercise of discretion might be impeached, because the court’s discretion will have been exercised on wrong or inadequate materials, but, as was recently pointed in this House in another connexion in Charles Osenlon V. Johnston [1942] A.C. 130, 138
Not available.
COUNSELS
