MIDLAND GALVANISING PRODUCT LIMITED v. OGUN STATE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
(2014) LCN/7037(CA)
RATIO
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: DISCRETION OF COURT TO GRANT EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL
What the law prescribes is that an act should be done within a stipulated time and inability to do it will require the bringing of an application for extension of time with substantial reasons why it is not done within that period. (See Order 7 Rule 10 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011). The indisposition of Counsel has not been established and promptness of the new Counsel as canvassed by the Appellant have not been established and a mere statement to that effect cannot take the place of cogent, compelling and substantial reasons required by the Rules of Court for the grant of the application. The case of RAKOL CLINIC MATERNITY HOSPITAL V. S. F. I. CO. LTD (1999) 7 NWLR (PT. 12), ONWUEGU V. IBRAHEEM (1997) 3 NWLR (PT.491) PG. 110 AT 119 of the Appellant cited to this regard relate to a different set of facts to those in contention in this appeal. These authorities are therefore not applicable in this appeal…. Rules of Court are not made for the fun of it but to be followed by the parties and enforced by the Court. See OBARO V. HASSAN (2013) ALL FWLR @ 681, which held that:-
“Rules of Court are very vital in the process of justice administration. They are meant to be obeyed, failure to do so can be counterproductive or negatively costly at times. A party who fails to obey court rules does so at his own peril. He can hardly be heard to complain”.
In DANGOTE v. CSC PLATEAU STATE (2001) 9 NWLR 141, held that:
An applicant who seeks the exercise of the court’s discretion has the burden of presenting all material facts necessary for the exercise of the discretion. The application of the Applicant will fail where such materials are absent. The material facts which should be cogent and substantial reasons envisaged by the rules for the grant of an application of this nature were absent. The Lower Court is justified to have dismissed this application and therefore properly exercised its discretion. Lastly the position of the Appellant to the effect that his ground of appeal must be considered is misconceived. By the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011, the twin pillars for the grant of this application must co-exist. If no cogent reasons are adduced, it is academic to consider the potency of the grounds of appeal.”
The ground of appeal of the Appellant is derived from the complaint against the ruling of the trial Court. It is clear from the complaint canvassed by the Appellant that it is not justifiable in line with the facts canvassed vide the depositions before the Court. Since the Court found that the application was not meritorious and same was dismissed, the grounds cannot survive the lame reasons for the application.
In all, the trial Judge was right in dismissing the application for extension of time as it is not granted as a matter of course but on substantial and cogent reasons. (Refers MICRO’ LION INT NIG. LTD. VS. GADZAMA (2009) 14 NWLR (PT. 1162) 481). The Appellant having failed to adduce good and substantial reasons, the issue of the length of time is totally irrelevant. A judicial discretion is exercised, judiciously upon the existence of good and compelling circumstances. A judicial discretion is therefore not available to be dished out like some free-flowing water from a natural fountain. The judicial fountain flows only upon the disclosure of substantial reasons which could adversely affect the right of a citizen. In the instant appeal, no right has been breached and none is at the risk of being breached.
Exercise of discretion is lost when he who comes to equity comes with tainted hands, the Applicant was represented and aware of the date its ruling was delivered. After receiving the ruling, it failed to act timeously and waited another 32 days out of the specified period. Ignorance is no defence mistake of Counsel is no longer a compelling reason unless the mistake is in terms of the application of law and was at when Counsel is unavailable; the Applicant should not sit back and wait but seek legal guidance also. Time waits for no one. Per Monica Bolna’an Dongban-Mensem, J.C.A.
