AKANO & ORS v. OYEWO & ORS
(2022)LCN/16145(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, March 18, 2022
CA/IB/M.07/2022(R)
Before Our Lordships:
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Court of Appeal
Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
(1) MR. LASISI AKANO & 3 ORS (2) MR. TAIRU SALAWU (3) MR. WAAHAB AYINDE (4) MUFUTAU AKINOLA For Themselves and On Behalf of OBISESAN FAMILY APPELANT(S)
And
(1) MR. OLASUNKANMI ADEYEMI OYEWO (2) MR. GBENGA ALAO (3) MR. LAOLU ALAO For Themselves and On Behalf of ADEOSUN FAMILY RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS CAN PUNISH PARTIES FOR THE MISTAKES OR NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR COUNSEL
It is trite law that, generally, it is not right to visit the parties with punishment arising out of the mistake, inadvertence or negligence of counsel. See Ibodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC 42; G.B.A. Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1971) 1 All NLR 162; Tunji Bowaje v. Moses Adediwura (1976) 6 SC 143; Theophilus Adebayo Doherty & Anor v. Richard Ade Doherty (1964) 1 All NLR 299; Central Bank of Nigeria v. Saidu H. Ahmed & 2 Ors. (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 369 and Mr. Shittu Akinpelu v. Ebunola Adegbore & Ors. (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1096) 531.
It should be noted, however, that the rule that mistake of counsel should not be visited on his client does not apply where the counsel is incompetent or tardy. See Michael Kolawole v. Pezzani Alberto (1989) All NLR 137; (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 382. PER ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE GRANT OF AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
The law is that an application for extension of time is not granted as a matter of mere course or routine but on good and substantial grounds. See the cases of Adekunle Ojora v. S.A.O. Bakare (1976) 1 SC 47 and Adekola Alagbe v. His Highness Oba Samuel Abimbola & Ors. (1978) 2 SC 47.
For an application for extension of time to succeed, it must be clearly shown that:-
(i) the delay is not inordinate nor willful;
(ii) there are good reasons, which are substantial, for the failure to appeal within the period prescribed by law; and
(iii) the proposed notice of appeal contains grounds which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard on its merits.
See G.B.A Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1971) 1 ALL NLR 164; Mustafa Akano & Anor v. Yesufu Adeniran (1975) 1 NMLR 391; Yinusa A. Shittu & Anor v. Mrs. Bisi Osibanjo & Anor. (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 483 and Leonard Okere & Ors. v. Titus Nlem & Ors. (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 234) 132. PER ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): By their motion on notice, filed on 14/01/2022, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:
“(1) Extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan delivered on the 19th of June, 2015 in Suit Number: I/986/2010 between PROFESSOR AJAGBE TORIOLA OYEWO & 3 ORS AND MR. LASISI AKANO & 3 ORS.
(2) Leave of this Honourable Court to appeal against the said decision of the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan in Suit Number I/986/2010 between PROFESSOR AJAGBE TORIOLA OYEWO & 3 ORS AND MR. LASISI AKANO & 3 ORS delivered on the 19th of June, 2015.
(3) Extension of time within which to file Notice of Appeal against the decision of the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan in Suit Number I/986/2010 between PROFESSOR AJAGBE TORIOLA OYEWO & 3 ORS AND MR. LASISI AKANO & 3 ORS delivered on the 19th of June, 2015.”
The applicants’ motion on notice is predicated on the following grounds:
(1) That the Notice of Appeal filed within the time allowed by law on the 12th of August, 2015 and all other applications filed pursuant to the said Notice of Appeal having been withdrawn by the Appellants’ Counsel were struck-out and the Appeal Number was deleted by this Honourable Court on the premise that the said Notice of Appeal was wrongly headed.
(2) That the afore-said Notice of Appeal in this Suit which was filed by the Applicants within the time allowed by the rules of this Court at the Lower Court was discovered by this Honourable Court to have been wrongly headed, was held not to have been valid and competent in law.
(3) That the said Notice of Appeal was inadvertently wrongly headed with the nomenclature of Claimants/Respondents and Defendants/Appellants by the Applicants’ Counsel.
(4) That the error(s) contained in the afore-said Notice of Appeal was caused vide the inadvertence of the Applicants’ Counsel who prepared same.
(5) That the Applicants were not in any way contributory to the inadvertence of their Counsel by wrongly heading the said Notice of Appeal.
(6) That the Applicants filed a Motion on Notice at the Registry of this Court on the 23rd of March, 2021 for a Trinity prayer with a view to regularizing the said Notice of Appeal that was detected by this Honourable Court to have been wrongly headed.
(7) That the said Motion on Notice was withdrawn by the Applicants’ Counsel on the 24th November, 2021 when it came up for hearing based on the hint of the Court that the name of the High Court from which the appeal emanated was not stated in the body of the said Motion on Notice filed on the 23rd of March, 2021, consequently struck-out same and the Motion Number deleted by this Court.
(8) That the names of the Parties in the said Suit Number I/986/2010 which are (1) PROFESSOR AJAGBE TORIOLA OYEWO (2) MR. OLASUNKANMI ADEYEMI OYEWO (3) MR. GBENGA ALAO (4) MR. LAOLU ALAO (Claimants) AND MR. LASISI AKANO (2) MR. TAIRU SALAWU (3) MR. WAHABI AYINDE and (4) MR. MUFUTAU AKINOLA (Defendants) were not also stated on the Motion on Notice mentioned in Ground 7 (Supra) hence, this instant application.”
The motion on notice is supported with an affidavit of 5 (five) paragraphs by which the applicants tendered exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F”. The motion is also supported with a written address. In opposition, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents filed a counter affidavit of 12 (twelve) paragraphs and it is also supported by a written address. The applicants filed a further and better affidavit in response to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents’ counter affidavit and their further affidavit is supported with a written reply on points of law.
In their written address, the learned counsel for the applicants identified two issues for the determination of the application as follows:
“(1) Whether this Honourable Court has the power to grant extension of time within which the Applicants may appeal the decision of the lower Court.
(2) Whether mistake of counsel qualify as special circumstance to justify the grant of extension of time to appeal.”
On behalf of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents two issues were distilled for the determination of the motion as follows:
“1. Whether, considering the excuses adduced in the Applicants’ affidavit filed on 14/1/2022, it can be said that the repeated delays by the Applicants and their Counsel is justifiable.
2. Whether the Applicants’ proposed grounds of appeal constitute arguable and substantial grounds of appeal to warrant grant of the prayers on the Motion paper.”
It should be noted that the original 1st respondent Prof. Ajagbe Toriola Oyewo, was reported to have died and his name was struck out as a party to this motion on notice.
The learned counsel for the applicants referred to the case of Odofin & Anor. v. Agu & Anor. (1992) LPELR -2225 (SC) on when to seek “a trinity prayer” and what the trinity prayers should be. Counsel proceeded to rely on the case of Adigwe v. FRN (2015) LPELR – 24694 (SC), and contended as follows:
“…the principles governing the grant of extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal have been settled in several decisions of this Court which include: (i) substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within time, and (ii) grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.”
They argued that by the depositions in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of the application and their proposed notice and grounds of appeal they have satisfied the above conditions.
In urging the Court to grant the application, learned counsel submitted that:
“…the failure of the Applicants to appeal within time was due to the error(s) of the Counsel, who, inadvertently wrongly headed the Notice of Appeal and all other Applications filed pursuant to same, cum the omission of the name of the Lower Court from which the appeal emanated and the names of the Parties therein in the Motion on Notice filed in the Registry of this Court on 23rd of March, 2021 which is beyond the Applicants’ control while the Respondents in this matter will not be prejudiced if this application is granted in the interest of Justice.”
In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that “except an appellant satisfies the Court that there are good and substantial reasons justifying the delay in appealing within time, the application will not be granted” and in support of this submission they relied on the cases of Ikenta Best (Nig.) v. A–G; Rivers State (2008) LPELR – 1476 (SC); Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC 39 and Kalu v. Igwe (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 178) 168.
The respondent contended as follows:
“…there is nothing on record before your Lordships showing why it took the Appellants 4 years to compile and transmit Record of Appeal. In similar vein, the instant application has been filed for a 3rd time before your Lordships. Especially given the fact in paragraph 11 of the deposition of Olaniyi Emmanuel Olaiya, to the effect that the Respondents have been denied fruits of their judgment and that the Applicants have continued to sell the subject matter of over 11 years of litigation, the only conclusion is that the Applicants are out to frustrate the Respondents/Judgment Creditors.”
Counsel for the respondents contended that the grounds of appeal in the applicants’ proposed notice of appeal did not “disclose substantial and arguable grounds” for the following reasons:-
1. The ground complaining of failure by the trial Court to deliver its judgment within 90 days, from the close of final written addresses and their failure to obtain copies of the judgment within 7 days, does should show what injustice the applicants have suffered as a result of the failure;
2. The ground on signing of the writ of summons “clearly mischievously misrepresented facts” as “the writ of summon was signed by the counsel, Alhaji S. Niyi Ajewole and not his firm”, and
3. The other grounds on evidence are not supported by the particulars which are totally elusive and cannot be said to form substantial and arguable grounds.
It is on record, as stated earlier, that the applicants filed a further and better affidavit and a written reply on points of law. I have read all the processes which the parties filed and exchanged in respect of this motion. I have also read the authorities cited and relied upon by the parties.
The answer to the first question raised by the appellants is simple and straight forward. The answer to that question is: This Court has the power to grant an extension of time within which the applicants may appeal against the decision of the lower Court.
The judgment sought to be appealed against was delivered on Friday, the 19th day of June, 2015 in Suit No: I/986/2010 between: PROFESSOR AJAGBE TORIOLA OYEWO & 3 ORS. (for themselves and on behalf of members of Adeosun family) v. MR. LASISI AKANO & 3 ORS (for themselves and on behalf of members of Obisesan family). The applicants were the defendants in the said suit and therefore, were parties thereto. The trial Court – High Court of Oyo State, holden at Ibadan, sat as a Court of first instance and delivered its final judgment in the civil case on the said 19th day of June, 2015. Therefore, by virtue of Section 241(1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the applicants could appeal as of right to this Court. The question of leave to appeal does not arise in this matter. Accordingly, the first and second prayers, in the applicants’ motion on notice, relating to leave to appeal are irrelevant and they are hereby struck out.
The law is settled that a right of appeal, as in this case, is constitutional, as it is provided for in the Constitution. However, the exercise of a party’s or person’s right of appeal is permissible only within the limit as provided by law. See Ben Anachebe Esq. v. Kingsley Ijeoma & 2 Ors (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 169.
By the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 24 (2) (a) of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976 (as amended) the period of time for giving notice of appeal against a final decision of a High Court in a civil action or suit is “three months.” In this case, the applicants are out of time by more than 7 (seven) years.
The affidavit in support of this application was deposed to by one Miss Jimoh Aina, a Legal Secretary in the Law firm of Messrs Bayo Alade & Co. who deposed in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit as follows:
“(3) That I have the authority and consent of my Boss, Adedayo Alade Esq. of Counsel and that of the Applicants to depose to this Affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice.
(4) That the 2nd Applicant told me in our office at Academy Area, Ibadan on the 24th of November, 2021 around 5:00pm and I verily believed him that the following facts exist that:-
(1) The Respondents instituted this Suit against them at the Registry of the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan vide a Writ of Summon and other accompanied Process(es) on the 24th of August, 2010.
(ii) The Respondents case was for the Declaration of title to land and injunction.
(iii) The High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan in its wisdom granted all the reliefs of the Respondents on the 19th day of June, 2015.
(iv) The Applicants having been dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan as deposed to in Paragraph 4(iii) above instructed their Counsel Adebayo Alade Esq. of Counsel to appeal against the said decision of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan.
(v) Consequently, the Notice of Appeal dated 10th August, 2015 was filed within the time allowed by law on the 12th of August, 2015 at the Registry of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State sitting at Ibadan.
(vi) Now shown to me and marked EXHIBIT “A” is the Certified True Copy of the Notice of Appeal dated the 10th of August, 2015, but filed on the 12th of August, 2015.
(vii) They later compiled the Record of Appeal and same was transmitted to this Honourable Court and settled their Briefs of Argument albeit out of time on the 1st day of November, 2019.
(5) That my Boss Adebayo Alade Esq. of Counsel further told me in our office on the 25th day of November, 2021 at about 4:30pm and I verily believed him that the following facts exist that:-
(i) This Honourable Court discovered that the Notice of Appeal filed on the 12th of August, 2015 at the Registry of the High Court of Justice, Ibadan Oyo State was invalid same having been wrongly headed.
(ii) Based on this discovery, the Notice of Appeal filed at the Registry of the Lower Court and all other applications filed at the Registry of this Court were withdrawn by the Applicants’ Counsel following the hint of this Honourable Court.
(iii) The said Notice of Appeal filed on the 12th of August, 2015 and all other Applications filed Pursuant to the said Notice of Appeal having been withdrawn by the Appellants’ Counsel therein were struck-out and the Appeal Number was deleted.
(iv) Now shown to me and marked EXHIBIT “B” is the certified True Copy of the Enrolment of Order dated 18th March, 2021.
(v) That consequent to the deposition in Paragraph 5(iii) above, the Applicants filed an application for a Trinity Prayer at the Registry of this Honourable Court on the 23rd of March, 2021 for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan delivered in the 19th June, 2015 in Suit Number I/986/2010 between PROFESSOR AJAGBE TORIOLA OYEWO & 3 ORS AND MR. LASISI AKANO & 3 ORS.
(vi) That the said application mentioned in Paragraph 5(v) (Supra) was slated for hearing on the 24th of November, 2021.
(vii) That this Honourable Court observed that the Applicants did not mention the name of the Lower Court where the appeal emanated from and the names of the parties in the said Suit Number I/986/2010 between PROFESSOR AJAGBE TORIOLA OYEWO & 3 ORS AND MR. LASISI AKANO & 3 ORS ON THE FACE OF THE Motion paper.
(viii) That the Applicants having taken the hints of this Honourable Court, withdrew the said application and Motion Number was consequently deleted by this Honourable Court, hence, this application for regularization.
(ix) Now shown to me and marked EXHIBIT “C” is the Certified True Copy of the Motion on Notice for a Trinity Prayer filed at the Registry of this Honourable Court on the 23rd of March, 2021.
(x) Now shown to me and marked EXHIBIT “D” is the Certified True Copy of the Enrolment of order dated 24th November, 2021.
(xi) That the Applicants having been still dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan, consequently, instructed him to file a Notice of Appeal in line with the hints of this Court.
(xii) Now shown to me and marked EXHIBIT “E” is the Certified True Copy of the decision of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan which the Applicants were appealing and intends to appeal against.
(xiii) That failure of the Applicants to appeal within time was due to the error(s) of the Counsel, who inadvertently wrongly headed the Notice of Appeal and all other Applications filed pursuant to same vide Exhibit “A” herein attached cum the omission of the name of the Lower Court from which the appeal emanated and the names of the parties therein in the Motion of Notice filed in the Registry of this Court on 23rd of March, 2021.
(xiv) The Applicants were not contributory to the inadvertence of their Counsel who wrongly headed the said Notice of Appeal and omitted the name of the Lower Court from which the appeal emanated together with the names of the Parties in the said Motion on Notice filed at the registry of this Court on 23rd of March, 2021.
(xv) Now shown to me and marked EXHIBIT “F” is the Applicants’ proposed Notice of Appeal containing arguable and substantial Grounds of Appeal.
(xvi) That it is in the interest of Justice to grant this application.
(xvii) That the Applicants are ready to file their Notice of Appeal within 7 (seven) days if this application is granted.”
From the depositions, reproduced above, the applicants filed a notice of appeal on 12/08/2015 within time against the judgment but the record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 01/11/2019, more than four years after the notice of appeal was filed in the Registry of the trial Court; and that on 18/03/2021, this Court discovered that the said notice of appeal was incompetent and the processes – the notice of appeal, record of appeal and appellants’ brief were struck out. On 23/03/2021 the applicants filed another motion on notice seeking the trinity prayers in respect of the same judgment and it was identified as Appeal No. CA/IB/M.104/2021 which they withdrew on 24/11/2021 and it was struck out by this Court. They then waited for another 3 (three) months before filing this present application.
The applicants have said that the delay is a result of incompetent processes which they had been filing. A cursory look at all the processes, which the applicants had filed before this one, shows that the said processes were filed by the same counsel – Adebayo Alade, Esq. of Bayo Alade & Co., who also filed the present motion on notice together with the proposed notice of appeal and the other processes accompanying it.
It is trite law that, generally, it is not right to visit the parties with punishment arising out of the mistake, inadvertence or negligence of counsel. See Ibodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC 42; G.B.A. Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1971) 1 All NLR 162; Tunji Bowaje v. Moses Adediwura (1976) 6 SC 143; Theophilus Adebayo Doherty & Anor v. Richard Ade Doherty (1964) 1 All NLR 299; Central Bank of Nigeria v. Saidu H. Ahmed & 2 Ors. (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 369 and Mr. Shittu Akinpelu v. Ebunola Adegbore & Ors. (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1096) 531.
It should be noted, however, that the rule that mistake of counsel should not be visited on his client does not apply where the counsel is incompetent or tardy. See Michael Kolawole v. Pezzani Alberto (1989) All NLR 137; (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 382.
In this case, the applicants and their counsel appear to have obviously been acting in concert by deliberately filing incompetent processes with the sole aim or intention of delaying their ‘appeal’ to this Court. The Courts have been admonished not to tolerate a situation, such as this one, “where a counsel committed all unforgivable blunder which must affect his case, such as filing a wrong or an incompetent process” – per I. T Muhammad, JSC (as he then was now CJN) in Olu Ode Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc & Anor. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282 at 310 – 311.
The learned counsel for the applicants proudly argued that the repeated errors were due to counsel (him) and beyond the applicants’ control and that the errors were pointed out by this Court on two or more previous occasions or adjournments. It should be noted, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, per Ngwuta, JSC (of blessed memory) in the case of Alhaji Rasaki Abiola Ekunola v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1377) 224 at 273, that:
“The Court does not have to spoon-feed learned counsel on the law and rules.”
The applicants who have been acquiescent with their learned counsel filing incompetent processes and not being diligent in prosecuting their ‘appeal’ against the judgment of the trial Court cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be heard to say that the mistakes of their counsel cannot be visited on them. They are as guilty as their learned counsel, for their lack of vigilance and decisive actions in the matter.
The law is that an application for extension of time is not granted as a matter of mere course or routine but on good and substantial grounds. See the cases of Adekunle Ojora v. S.A.O. Bakare (1976) 1 SC 47 and Adekola Alagbe v. His Highness Oba Samuel Abimbola & Ors. (1978) 2 SC 47.
For an application for extension of time to succeed, it must be clearly shown that:-
(i) the delay is not inordinate nor willful;
(ii) there are good reasons, which are substantial, for the failure to appeal within the period prescribed by law; and
(iii) the proposed notice of appeal contains grounds which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard on its merits.
See G.B.A Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1971) 1 ALL NLR 164; Mustafa Akano & Anor v. Yesufu Adeniran (1975) 1 NMLR 391; Yinusa A. Shittu & Anor v. Mrs. Bisi Osibanjo & Anor. (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 483 and Leonard Okere & Ors. v. Titus Nlem & Ors. (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 234) 132.
As stated earlier, the applicants have not by their affidavits shown good and substantial reasons for their inordinate delay in appealing against a decision delivered more than 7 (seven) years ago.
It is for all the foregoing reasons that the applicants’ motion on notice filed on 14/01/2022 is hereby refused and dismissed, accordingly.
The sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira Only) is hereby awarded as costs in favour of the respondents and against the applicants.
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JCA in this appeal.
The law is well settled that in the determination of an application for enlargement of time to appeal, each case is to be treated and decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The reason is that the facts to be taken into consideration by the Court are not exhaustive. The law is further settled that an applicant seeking to enlarge time to appeal must place sufficient materials before the Court to show that the delay is not inordinate or willful. This is because a complaint of inordinate delay of trial is denial of justice, following the adage that justice delayed is justice denied. It follows therefore that inordinate and inexcusable delay may defeat an application for leave to appeal. However, in determining the inordinate and inexcusability of the delay, the Court will take into consideration not only the period of the delay but the circumstances or idiosyncrasies of the delay. See NGERE VS. OKURUKET XIV (2014) 11 NWLR (PT. 1417)147; BANKOLE VS. DADA (2003) 11 NWLR (PT. 830)174: OKEREKE VS. LIQUID INVESTMENTS NIGERIA LIMITED (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 560) 26; EGBO VS. AGBARA (1997) 1 NWLR (PT. 481) 293: USIKARO VS. ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 172) 150.
It is evident from materials placed before this Court that the decision sought to be appealed was delivered by the lower Court on 19th of June, 2015. That is about seven years ago. While it is noteworthy that the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal within time, same was withdrawn because it was incompetent. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court more than four years after the said Notice of Appeal was filed. It is apparent the Applicants warehoused the appeal in this Court to deny the Respondents the fruits of their Judgment. The practice of filing incompetent processes or otherwise competent processes out of time is not one that should be encouraged by this Court. Such applications should not be granted as a matter of cause. The reasons given for the inordinate delay in appealing the Judgment of the lower Court is inexcusable. The discretion of this Court cannot therefore be exercised in favour of the instant Applicants. To do so will occasion injustice to the Respondents.
It is for the above and for the more detailed reasons articulated in the lead Ruling that I also refuse the application. It is also dismissed by me. I abide by the consequential order for costs as contained in the lead Ruling.
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the lead ruling just delivered by my learned brother, MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JCA. I am in total agreement his reasoning and conclusion that this application is unmeritorious, and ought to be dismissed.
The guiding principles in considering an application for extension of time to appeal have become legion. The principles, which have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the cases of OKERE v NLEM (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 234) 132; and YESUFU v CO-OPERATIVE BANK (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 483, require an applicant for extension of time to appeal to show:
(a) That the delay in bringing the application is neither willful nor inordinate.
(b) That there are good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period.
(c) That there are grounds, which prima facie, show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
As observed in the lead ruling of my learned brother Adumein, JCA, the Applicants’ affidavits in support of this application have failed to show good and substantial reasons for the inordinate delay by the Applicants in failing to appeal against a decision delivered by the trial Court more than seven years ago. For this and all the reasons more elaborately stated in the lead ruling, I join in dismissing the application for lack of merit.
Appearances:
Bola Adebiyi, Esq., with him, Timothy Ogundiran, Esq. holds the brief of Bayo Alade, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Kayode Aderemi, Esq. For Respondent(s)