ALHAJI YEKINI JIMOH v. THE HON. MINISTER FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY & ORS(2018)

ALHAJI YEKINI JIMOH v. THE HON. MINISTER FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY & ORS

(2018) LCN/4591(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 14th day of December, 2018

SC.422/2016(R)

RATIO

DUTY IMPOSED ON A DEPONENT OF AN AFFIDAVIT

A deponent of an affidavit in any proceeding before a Court of law is a witness in the matter. Section 115 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 enjoins the deponent as a witness, to depose to facts in an affidavit that “either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true”. It is not enough to set out in the preamble paragraphs of an affidavit for the deponent to restate the facts that he has been authorized either by his principal or employer, and the client to make the affidavit; and that he derived the facts averred in the affidavit in the course of his employment and/or from his personal knowledge and/or information generally. For every assertion in a specific averment the deponent, consistent with Section 115 (1), (3) & (4) of the Evidence Act, must disclose with particulars his source of information and belief. PER EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

WHAT IS REQUIRED OF AN APPLICANT SEEKING FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

All that an applicant is required to do is to file an application (as he has done) supported by affidavit and relevant exhibits that must show:-(a) good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed time; and (b) grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. The applicant succeeds on (a) if he can show something that entitles him to the exercise of the Courts discretion, such as mistake or inadvertence of counsel. The reasoning being that when no credible excuse is given no indulgence can be granted. On (b) the applicant does not need to show that the grounds of appeal will succeed, all that he needs to show is that they are arguable. (a) and (b) must co-exist before the application can be said to be properly before the court. So once there are good reasons for the delay an application for extension of time to appeal can be brought after long periods. Finally if the ground of appeal complains of lack of jurisdiction and it appears so, the court would no longer inquire into the reasons for the delay. See Federal Housing Authority v Kalejaiye (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1226) p.161. Famu& 2 Ors v Kassim & 2 Ors (2012) IISC p. 4, Ubene v COP (2012) 5-6 SC p.13, Federal Housing Authority v Abosede (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 537) p. 117, Kotoye v Saraki (1995) 5NWLR (Pt.395) p.256, Ibodo v Enarofia (1980) 5 -7 SC p.42, Ukwu v Bunge (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt.518) p.527. PER OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

PRE-CONDITION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT

In Tabik Investment Ltd v G.T.B. (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) p. 240. I said that: “Before a public document can be tendered and accepted by the Court, it must be certified. A public document is certified if: (a) it was paid for; (b) there is an endorsement/certificate that it is a true copy of the document in question. (c) the endorsement/certificate must be dated and signed by the Officer responsible for certification with his name and official title. PER OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

JUSTICES

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

PAUL ADAMU GALUMJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between

ALHAJI YEKINI JIMOH Appellant(s)

AND

THE HON. MINISTER FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
2. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
3. ALHAJI BABA MUSTAPHA
(Suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative ALHAJI MOHAMMED SANI MUSA) Respondent(s)

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): The Appellant/Applicant, through his Counsel Mr. lgbokwe, SAN, is vide application filed on 21st June, 2016 seeking the following reliefs –
1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court extending the time within which the Appellant/Applicant may compile and transmit to this Honourable Court from the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, the Record of Appeal in respect of his Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 2nd day of July, 2015 against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore A. A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No. CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh vs. The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, the six months period allowed by the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 (as amended) for the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja and the

14 (fourteen) days allowed for the Appellant/Applicant, to compile and transmit the said Record of Appeal to this Honourable Court, by the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 (as amended), having expired.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court extending the time within which the Appellant/Applicant may serve the Record of Appeal in respect of his Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 2nd day of July, 2015 against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, Judicial Division, Abuja, delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore, A. A. Adumien, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No. CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh vs. The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, the period allowed by the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 (as amended) for the Appellant/Applicant to serve the said Record of Appeal on the Respondents having expired.
3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court deeming the Record of Appeal already compiled and transmitted

to this Honourable Court and served on the Respondents by the Appellant/Applicant through the Appeal Section of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, as having been properly compiled, transmitted, filed and served but with liberty to any of the parties to file and serve an Additional Record of Appeal, if need be.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting the Appellant/Applicant extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal to this Honourable Court against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015 by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore A. A. Adumien, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No. CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh vs. The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, on grounds other than of pure law, the time within which the Appellant/Applicant could seek leave to appeal against the said Judgment of the Court of Appeal having expired.

AN ORDER of the Honourable Court granting the Appellant/Applicant leave to Appeal to this Honourable Court against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore A. A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No. CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh vs. The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, on the grounds other than of pure law.
6. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court granting the Appellant/Applicant extension of time within which to Appeal to this Honourable Court against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division Abuja, delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore A. A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No. CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh vs. The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development

Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, time within which the Appellant/Applicant could appeal against the said Judgment having expired.
7. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court granting leave to the Appellant/Applicant to amend his Notice of Appeal including filing additional grounds of appeal in the manner indicated in the Proposed Amended Notice of Appeal already filed and served on the Respondents.
8. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court deeming the Amended Notice of Appeal already filed and served on the Respondent as properly raised, filed and served subject to the payment of filing fees thereon.
9. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court incorporating the Amended Notice of Appeal as part of the Record of Appeal subject to the payment of filing fees on the Amended Notice of Appeal by the Appellant/Applicant.
10. AN FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS OR OTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

He has also, in the application put forward the underlisted grounds for seeking the indulgence. That is –

By Section 6(6), 36(1) and 233(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), this Honourable Court has powers to hear and determine an application for trinity prayers and for extension of time to compile and transmit record of appeal.
B. The Appellant/Applicant’s application is predicated on a Notice of Appeal and grounds of appeal raised some constitutional jurisdictional issues and they constitute special and exceptional circumstances upon which if leave is granted the appeal may succeed.
C. Some of the grounds of appeal in the Appellant/Applicant’s Notice of Appeal do not require leave of this Honourable Court to appeal and they can sustain the Appellant/Applicant’s Notice of Appeal.
D. This Honourable Court readily accede to an application for leave to appeal if a ground for the appeal is on jurisdiction.
E. The Appellant/Applicant’s grounds of appeal show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
F. This Honourable Court does not deny an Applicant with an arguable appeal his constitutional right to appeal and access to Court.
G. An appeal on law, mixed law and fact and on facts are strictly speaking separate appeals requiring their respective notices and grounds of Appeal.

It will be too technical, too superfluous and awkward, for the Appellant/Applicant to have to file another Notice of Appeal on grounds of appeal requiring leave to appeal, which will in effect amount to appealing twice (one as of right and the other by leave), multiplicity of efforts, processes and costs in one and the same appeal before the same Court.
I. It was because the procedure in paragraph ‘H’ above, in effect, will same Court that such notice of appeal containing the grounds of law will suffice and any additional grounds can be brought in by way of trinity prayers and additional grounds of appeal.
J. The Appellant/Applicant did not bring this application earlier than now because its Counsel Mr. Adolphus Nwachukwu and Mr. Denis Abu could not obtain the Judgment of the Court of Appeal on time to enable them study and see whether there was need to file additional grounds of appeal.
K. By the time the Judgment of the Court of Appeal was obtained on 14/12/15, the 3rd Respondent has purported to enforce the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 9/12/15 and later on 14/1/16 which made it

impracticable for the Appellant/Applicant to proceed with this appeal when the res had been tampered with by the 3rd Respondent.
L. The failure to obtain the certified true copy of the judgment of the Court below on time and to appreciate some finding of the Court below are best a mistake of the Registry of the Court below and the Appellant/Applicant’s counsel which cannot be punished on the Applicant.
M. The Applicant indicated in its Notice of Appeal filed on 2/7/2015 that additional grounds of appeal may be filed upon the procurement of the certified true copy of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.
N. The Record of Appeal was not compiled, transmitted and served within time because the Registrar of the Court of Appeal could not locate the appeal file on time and when same was located the certified true copy of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal was not availed to the Appellant until 14/12/2015.
O. The grant of this application is geared towards ensuring that justice is done between the Appellant/Applicant and the Respondents.
P. The Appellant/Applicant’s application deserves a sympathetic consideration in the interest of fair hearing and substantial justice.

The application is supported by an affidavit to which a host of documents have been exhibited. The application is also supported by a number of processes christened as direct and concise argument amplifying the reasons relied upon for the application, concise statement of the case containing facts material to the consideration of the questions presented by the Appellant/Applicant; Appellant/Applicant’s statement of questions which he will like the Supreme Court to consider; – etc. All those processes were filed on 5th October, 2018. It would suffice if the learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant had simply relied on the written address he filed on the 21st June, 2016; which address accompanied the application. The surplusage is unnecessary even though at times (but not on this occasion) to be superflous is better than to be scanty.

In opposing the application, the 3rd Respondent, whose Counsel is Mr. Anachebe, SAN, filed a counter-affidavit on 20th December, 2017 to which 12 documents were exhibited. The deponent of the counter-affidavit is one Charles Jibuaku, Esq., who describes

himself therein as a Legal Practitioner “in the Chambers of Mr. A. B. Anachebe, SAN who is the lead Counsel representing the Judgment Creditor in this matter.”

Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, for instance, avers “that private investigation reveals that the Applicant had secretly relinquished his interest in the res in favour of the deponent and/or other unknown persons, which fact is concealed from this Honourable Court but can be ascertained from the tenancy contracts and proof of payment of rent”. No tenancy contract or receipt for payment of rent was exhibited. The source of this information on which the weighty allegation is predicated remains a matter for conjecture. The averment, like many others in the counter-affidavit, is reckless, and offensive of the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act. Paragraph 3 thereof does not state how the deponent of the counter-affidavit comes to the bold assertion “that the deponent of the Applicant’s affidavit is a total stranger to this proceedings.” The averment does not seek to discharge the burden of proof laid on his shoulders by Sections 131 and 132 of Evidence Act that he who asserts any facts must prove that those facts exist inorder to succeed.
Upon reading the counter-affidavit, one gets the impression that it is tailored to meet an application for

stay of execution of a judgment. There is no such prayer in the application. The quixotic counter-affidavit appears to substantially attack a phantom.

Perhaps I had come to Court to hear this application very presumptuous that when Senior Advocates are in any matter on both sides they would assist the Court reach decision with ease and that the proceeding would not be befuddled. Alas, this case is a complete rebuttal of that presumption.

There are a total of 10 reliefs in the application. According to Adesina, Esq. SAN, of counsel to the Applicant, prayers 1 – 3 seek to regularise the Records of Appeal; prayers 4 – 6 are trinity prayers to regularise grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal that leave was not first sought and granted before they are filed; prayer 7 seeks to amend the extant Notice of Appeal to introduce additional grounds of appeal, prayer 9 is to enable the Applicant incorporate the Amended Notice of Appeal into the Record of Appeal. Prayer 8, the senior counsel submits, a prayer that the Amended Notice of Appeal be deemed filed and served.

In opposing this application Mr. Anachebe, of Senior counsel for the Judgment Creditor/3rd Respondent, submits that Exhibits A2 – A9 are uncertified public documents, and that they are inadmissible in evidence. He submits further that the Records of Appeal to be regularised is also replete with uncertified documents. The objections, seemingly, do not extend to prayers 1- 3: the prayers for extension of time within which to compile the Records of Appeal. Even if the objection that the Record of Appeal is replete with uncertified documents relate to prayers 1- 3; the objection is brought with uncertainties and non-specifics. We are, like the Applicant, not told or shown the documents that are not certified. The fundamental principle in fair hearing is audi alteram partem, which this objection denies to the Applicant. Both the applicant and the Court are left in the dark to fish out the uncertified documents in the 535 proposed Records of Appeal. Certainly, neither the Court nor the Applicant, the adversary of the objector, are expected to discharge the burden of proving the objector’s assertion. This burden rests squarely on Mr. Anachebe, SAN and his client by dint of Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act.

He who asserts a fact must prove that the fact he asserts exists. Otherwise, he shall not be entitled to the verdict or judgment of the Court.

In any case, it does appear that Mr. Anachebe, SAN, in submitting that the aforestated documents were not duly certified, did not closely observe them. The documents were duly certified. Pages 35 and 45 of the Record clearly show that Exhibits A2 and 43, respectively the Amended Notice of Appeal and the Notice of Appeal were certified. Exhibits A8 and A9, were respectively at pages 83 and 101, duly certified. Exhibit 8 is the motion filed on 22nd January, 2016; while Exhibit A9 is the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 6th May, 2016. Exhibit A4, the letter from Mike Igbokwe SAN & Co., was similarly duly certified at page 53 of the Record. The rather robust submission that these material documents were not duly certified true copies is completely and unfortunately misleading. It was not a mere goof by the Senior Counsel.

The feeble resistance of the 3rd Respondent to prayers 1 – 3 is not sufficient for me to deny

the reliefs to the Applicant. Prima facie, the supporting affidavit discloses good and substantial reasons for the grant of prayers 1 – 3, paragraphs 9 – 11 of the supporting affidavit blame the delay in compiling the Record on the Registry of the Court below just as they acquit the Applicant and his legal team of any in diligence. The averments remain substantially unchallenged or in disputed.
They are credible and I am entitled to act on them, and I hereby act on them.

Reliefs 1 – 3 are hereby granted. Time is extended to today for the Applicant to compile and transmit the Records of Appeal in the appeal No. SC. 422/2016, the periods within which the Registry of the Court below and the Applicant had respectively to compile and transmit the Records of Appeal haven elapsed. The Record of Appeal transmitted on 21st June, 2016 is hereby deemed duly compiled, transmitted to this Court and served on the parties in the appeal today.

The original Notice of Appeal filed on 2nd July, 2015 has four grounds of appeal. It is at pages 528 – 535 of the Record of Appeal just regularised.

Prayers 5, 6 & 7 are trinity prayers sought to enable the Appellant/Applicant file 5 additional grounds of appeal to the four (4) in the Original Notice of Appeal. The document, a proposed Amended Notice of Appeal, not yet strictly speaking forming part of a public document, until filed in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, does not require to be certified as a public document.

Exhibit A2 is a copy of the original Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal. It is a copy coming from the Applicant’s custody. The official copy of it is found at pages 286 – 296 of the Records of Appeal. Even if Exhibit A2 is said to be public document (which I do not agree) requiring its certification; this Court can look at its own records, particularly pages 286 – 296 of the Records of Appeal. Exhibit A2 does not need certification. The original of Exhibit A2, statutorily, had already been served on the 3rd Respondent of this Court. The insistence of Mr. Anachebe, SAN for certification is just nothing but an appeal to acne technicality. The Courts these days lean towards doing substantial justice. In any case Exhibit A2, by virtue of Order 2, Rule 31

(2) of the extant Rules of this Court, is not relevant to any of the prayers in the application. 1st and 2nd Respondents do not oppose the application on prayers 4, 5 & 6. The 3rd Respondent, who opposes them, has not shown good cause why the indulgence should be denied to the Appellant/Applicant. The purpose of additional grounds of appeal is for all the issues in the appeal to be resolved once and for all. The Applicant has established good reasons for the delay in the supporting affidavit. The cause of delay is not disputed, and it is not unreasonable. The additional grounds of appeal prima facie show good cause why the appeal, on the additional grounds of appeal, should be heard. Accordingly, prayers 4, 5 & 6 are hereby granted as prayed.

Time is hereby extended to the Appellant/Applicant within which to seek leave to file additional grounds of appeal, nos 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 in Exhibit A3. Leave to file those grounds which are not on pure law. Time is extended to today for the said additional grounds of Appeal, Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, in Exhibit A3 to be filed.

The Amended Notice of Appeal, in terms of Exhibit A3, filed on 21st June, 2016 is hereby deemed filed and served today. The said Amended Notice of Appeal shall form, and is hereby deemed to form, part of the Record of Appeal for this appeal.

The Application is granted as prayed in prayers 1 – 9 both inclusive. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft, the Ruling of my learned brother, Eko JSC. I agree with it, and for the reasons which His Lordship gives I, too would grant the application. Reliefs 4 to 6 are the reliefs an applicant who is out of time to appeal must first of all address before any of the other reliefs can be granted.
For, if these reliefs are not granted the applicant does not have an appeal. The applicant did not file his appeal within the time stipulated by the Rules, so he quite rightly has applied for extension of time to file the Trinity prayers. He seeks leave (permission) of the Court of Appeal. For if he is not granted leave he cannot appeal. All that an applicant is

required to do is to file an application (as he has done) supported by affidavit and relevant exhibits that must show:-
(a) good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed time; and
(b) grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
The applicant succeeds on (a) if he can show something that entitles him to the exercise of the Courts discretion, such as mistake or inadvertence of counsel. The reasoning being that when no credible excuse is given no indulgence can be granted.
On (b) the applicant does not need to show that the grounds of appeal will succeed, all that he needs to show is that they are arguable. (a) and (b) must co-exist before the application can be said to be properly before the court. So once there are good reasons for the delay an application for extension of time to appeal can be brought after long periods.
Finally if the ground of appeal complains of lack of jurisdiction and it appears so, the court would no longer inquire into the reasons for the delay. See Federal Housing Authority v Kalejaiye (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1226) p.161. Famu& 2 Ors v Kassim

& 2 Ors (2012) IISC p. 4, Ubene v COP (2012) 5-6 SC p.13, Federal Housing Authority v Abosede (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 537) p. 117, Kotoye v Saraki (1995) 5NWLR (Pt.395) p.256, Ibodo v Enarofia (1980) 5 -7 SC p.42, Ukwu v Bunge (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt.518) p.527.
The applicant has deposed in his affidavit in support good reasons for delay in filing his Notice of Appeal, and the Notice of Appeal contains arguable grounds of appeal. The application was correctly granted.
Once the trinity prayers are granted all the other reliefs ought to be granted so as to enable the applicant/appellant present a robust appeal for consideration. All the reliefs were correctly granted.

At the hearing of the application on 9 October, 2018, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent Mr. A.A. Anechebe pointed out that the appeal is replete with documents that are uncertified, contending that they cannot be used. He referred to Exhibits A2 – A4 and A8 and A9. Section 106 (h) of the Evidence Act, 2011 states that judgments, orders, or any legal document filed or deposited in any Court must be certified.

Indeed where such documents are relied on in Court only the certified copy of the document is admissible. Where it is not certified the presumption of regularity will not be ascribed to it. See Onobruchere & Anor v Esegine & Anor (1986) 1NSCC VoL17 p. 351.
It is well settled that a judge is entitled to look at its own records and proceedings and take notice of its contents. See Halsburys Laws of England 3rd Edition, Vol.15 p.335, paragraph 609.
I have examined the applicant’s Motion on Notice filed on 21 June, 2016.
Exhibit A2 is page 35. It is an amended Notice of Appeal.
Exhibit A3 is page 45. It is a Notice of Appeal.
Exhibit A4 is page 53. It is a letter signed by Abu Dennis for Mike Igbokwe SAN & Co.
Exhibit A8 is page 83. A Motion on Notice filed on 22 January 2016. While Exhibit A9 is page 101. It is a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 6 May, 2016.
In Tabik Investment Ltd v G.T.B. (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) p. 240. I said that:
“Before a public document can be tendered and accepted by the Court, it must be certified. A public document is certified if:
(a) it was paid for;
(b) there is an endorsement/certificate that it is a true copy of the document in question.

(c) the endorsement/certificate must be dated and signed by the Officer responsible for certification with his name and official title.
All the exhibits were paid for, and they are all endorsed as Certified True Copies (CTC).
Exhibits A2, A3, A4 and A8 are dated and signed by Sherifat Adebayo, Senior Registrar Court of Appeal, while Exhibit A9 is also dated but signed by K.O. Gbayegun, Senior Registrar Court of Appeal. On the contrary, all the documents are certified.

For these brief reasons as well as those more fully given in the leading Ruling I too grant the application.

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I agree with the Ruling just delivered by my learned brother, Ejembi Eko, JSC and to underscore the support, I have in the reasoning from which the decision came about, I shall make some remarks.

The appellant/applicant on the 21st July, 2016 filed a motion on notice praying for the following reliefs:-
1. An order of this Honourable Court extending the time within which the appellant/applicant may

compile and transmit to this Honourable Court from the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, the record of appeal in respect of his Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 2nd day of July, 2015 against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja judicial Division, Abuja delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by his Lordships: Honourable Justice Moore A.A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No. CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh v The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, the six month period allowed by the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 (as amended) for the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja and the 14 (fourteen) days allowed for the appellant/applicant, to compile and transmit the said Record of Appeal to this Honourable Court, by the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 (as amended), having expired.
2. An order of this Honourable Court extending the time within which the appellant/applicant may serve the record of

appeal in respect of his notice of appeal dated and filed on the 2nd day of July, 2015 against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore A.A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal NO: CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh v The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, the period allowed by the Supreme court Rules, 1985 (as amended) for the appellant/applicant to serve the said record of appeal on the respondents having expired.
3. An order of this Honourable Court deeming the Record of Appeal already complied and transmitted to this Honourable Court and served on the respondents by the appellant/applicant through the appeal section of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, as having been properly compiled, transmitted, filed and served but with liberty to any of the parties to file and serve an Additional Record of Appeal, if need be.

An order of the Honourable Court granting the appellant/applicant extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal to this Honourable Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015 by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore A.A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No:CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh v The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, on grounds other than of pure law, the time within which the appellant/applicant could seek leave to appeal against the said judgment of the Court of Appeal having expired.
5. An order of the Honourable Court granting the appellant/applicant leave to appeal to this Honourable Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by his Lordships; Honourable Justice Moore A.A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani

Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh v The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, on the grounds other than of pure law.
6. An order of the Honourable Court granting the appellant/applicant extension of time within which to appeal to this Honourable Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Abuja, delivered on the 1st day of July, 2015, by His Lordships: Honourable justice Moore A.A. Adumein, Honourable Justice T. Akomolafe Wilson, Honourable Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan in Appeal No. CA/A/26A/2012 between Alhaji Yekini Jimoh v The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, Alhaji Baba Mustapha (suing through his authorized Attorney/Representative Alhaji Mohammed Sani Musa, time within which the appellant/applicant could appeal against the said judgment having expired.
7. An order of the Honourable Court granting leave to the appellant/applicant to amend his Notice of Appeal including filing

additional grounds of appeal in the manner indicated in the Proposed Amended Notice of Appeal already filed and served on the respondents.
8. An order of the Honourable Court deeming the Amended Notice of Appeal already filed and served on the respondents as properly raised, filed and served subject to the payment of filing fees thereon.
9. An order of the Honourable Court incorporating the Amended Notice of Appeal as part of the Record of Appeal subject to the payment of filing fees on the Amended Notice of Appeal by the appellant/applicant.
10. And for such further orders or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The motion is supported by a 22 paragraph affidavit deposed to, by Edugie Abigail Abebe, a retired Permanent Secretary of the Federation.

Learned Senior Advocate, Mrs. Joy Adesina adopted a written address.

Chima Ede, learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents filed no documents and informed the Court that they are not opposing the application.

For the 3rd respondent, A. B. Anachebe SAN in opposition adopted their counter affidavit filed on 20/12/17

deposed to by Charles Jibuaku Esq., legal practitioner in the legal firm of counsel for 3rd respondent and also a written address filed on 5/10/18.

The applicant formulated a sole issue for determination of the application which is as follows:-
Whether the Honourable Court ought to exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously to hear, determine and grant the appellant/applicant’s Motion on Notice

Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent raised fourteen (14) issues for determination which are thus:-
1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal denied the appellant his constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) when their Lordships did not consider and determine all the issues raised for determination and argued by the appellant in his appellant brief of argument (Distilled from ground 1).
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when their Lordships struck out Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal and issues 1 and 2 arising from the said grounds of appeal but

contained in the appellant’s brief of argument because they did not arise from the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Distilled from ground 2).
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong in affirming the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja when the 3rd respondent’s originating summons at the trial Court was initiated, ‘taken out’ and filed by the law firm of ‘ANACHEBE & ANACHEBE’ which is not a Legal Practitioner (Distilled from ground 3).
4. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong in affirming the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja when the said trial Court wrongly assumed and lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the 3rd respondent’s suit (Distilled from ground 4).
5. Whether the learned Court of Appeal was wrong in affirming the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja when the said trial Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction and competence to entertain and determine the 3rd respondent’s suit and claim against the appellant and the 1st and 2nd respondents’ jointly

and severally that were statute – barred and improperly constituted (Distilled from ground 5).
6. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal wrongfully and without jurisdiction, sat on appeal over and reversed its earlier interlocutory decision delivered on the 29th day of October, 2014 in its final judgment of 1st day of July, 2015 which said interlocutory decision was delivered with jurisdiction (Distilled from ground 16).
7. Whether the Court of appeal was wrong inaffirming the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja when the said trial Court raised suo motu and decided some points against the appellant without giving the appellant and parties the opportunity to first address it on them (Distilled from ground 6).
9. Whether this was a proper case in which the declaratory relief sought by the 3rd respondent which was granted by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja should have been affirmed by the Court of Appeal (Distilled from ground 7).
10. Whether the 3rd respondent’s suit at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja was improperly initiated/commenced by Originating

Summons and the Court of Appeal was in error in not holding that the trial Court was wrong in not ordering pleadings or oral evidence to resolve the irreconcilable conflicts in the affidavit filed by the parties. (Distilled from ground 8).
11. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in affirming the holding of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja that the condition that the 3rd respondent should complete the building on the land within 2 years was not effective until a certificate of occupancy was issued and infrastructure provided by the 1st and 2nd respondents (Distilled from ground 9).
12. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in affirming the holding of the trial Court that the 3rd respondent’s right of occupancy over Plot 108, Jabi Cadastral Zone, B04, Abuja municipally called Plot 13, Umaru Dikko Street, Jabi, Abuja was still subsisting when the 1st respondent allocated the land to the appellant without first revoking the 3rd respondent’s right of occupancy (Distilled from grounds 10 and 11).
13. Whether the submission of the 3rd respondent’s right of occupancy for recertification and re-issuance of certificate of

occupancy which was acknowledged by the 1st and 2nd respondents means that the 1st and 2nd respondents had no reason to complain and had waived any contravention of the terms of offer/conveyance stipulated in the statutory right of occupancy. (Distilled from ground 12).
14. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong to have raised suo motu issues which did not arise from the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja without affording the parties especially the appellant the opportunity to address the Court of Appeal on such crucial issues (Distilled from ground 15).

The sole issue crafted by the applicant captures the essence of the dispute in this application and covering the field I shall make use of it.

SINGLE ISSUE:
Whether this Court should exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously to hear, determine and grant the appellant/applicant’s Motion on Notice.

Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the application calls for the exercise of discretion of a Court judiciously and judicially exercised and pending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Also, the consideration of such an application is guided by the rules and principles of law. He cited Long-John v Blakk (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 555) 524 at 542; Sections 6 (6) and 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); Olumegbon & Anor v Kareem (2002) FWLR (Pt.107) 1145 etc.

That since it is an exercise of discretion, the applicant has a duty of placing sufficient facts materials before the Court to enable the Court exercise its discretion judiciously and judicially. That the Court is always guided by the consideration of doing substantial justice between the parties in the shape of hearing an application on its merit. He cited Sanusi v Ayoola (1992) 23 NSCC (Pt. 111) 420; Ogar v James (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 722) 621 at 636; Williams & Ors v Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (1982) NSCC 36 at 39.

It was further stated for the applicant that the judgment of the Court below will show clearly that those grounds of appeal are as of right and therefore leave of Court below or the Supreme Court is not required. He cited Ogbechie v Onochie (1986) 2 FWLR (Pt. 23) 484; First Bank of Nigeria Plc v T.S.A. Industries Ltd (2010) FWLR (Pt. 537) 633 at 667 – 668.

That it is out of abundance of caution and avoidance of doubt that leave is sought by an applicant to appeal on a ground that he is not too sure raises a question of pure law or mixed law and facts because of the thin line between the two types of grounds of appeal and the distinction between them is not always free from difficulties. He cited Ojora & Ors v Odunsi (1964) NSCC 34 at 37; Nalsa & Team Associates v NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 212) 652 at 669.

That even if the applicant did not seek and obtain leave of Court, the appeal cannot be struck out because any one of grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the applicant’s Notice of Appeal will sustain this appeal. That it is only the grounds of appeal for which leave is required but was not sought for and obtained that will be deemed abandoned and struck out. He cited Ene v Asikpo (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 477 at 512; Akeredolu v Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 25) 710 at 733-734.

Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the appeal is competent and the delay in filing the appeal was due to inadvertence of the Court’s registry and learned counsel.

He cited Duke v Akpabuyo LG. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 130 at 150-151; Afribank v Trade Bank Plc (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 437) 445 at 451; Ibodo v Enarofia (1980) NSCC 195 at 200-201 etc.

That the justice of the matter warrants the grant of the application. He cited a lot of judicial authorities.

Responding, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the Court below denied the appellant his constitutional right to fair hearing when it did not consider and determine all the issues raised for determination and argued by the appellant in the appellant’s brief of argument. That the 3rd respondent’s originating summons at the trial Court was initiated, ‘Taken out and filed by the law firm of ‘ANACHEBE & ANACHEBE’ which is not a legal practitioner. That the Court of Appeal wrongly assumed and lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the 3rd respondent’s suit and the reliefs against the appellant and the 1st and 2nd respondents were statute – barred and improperly constituted. He referred to Bello v Adamu (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1287) 286 at 298/299; Ibrahim v Judicial Service Committee, Kaduna State (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1;

Ibenekwe v Egbuna (1964) 1 WLR 219 at 225; Osho & Anor v Foreign Finance Governor of Mid-Western State (1974) 10 SC 57 at 288-289.

It is now trite that an application for extension of time, tripod prayers, deeming orders, leave to bring additional grounds of appeal, amendment of notice of appeal and to compile and transmit Record of Appeal resonates for an exercise of the Court’s discretion which is not to be dealt with as a light affair but exercised judiciously and judicially, the facts and circumstances of an individual being the parametre on which the exercise depends.
That is to say that the judicial exercise of the discretion is not carried out on a whim or at large but guided by the rules and principles of law. Stated differently, the exercise is based on the peculiar facts of a given situation guided by law or the equitable decision of what is just and proper under the circumstance. That is why a duty is placed on the applicant of this discretion to place sufficient facts and materials before the Court to enable the Court do its bit judiciously and judicially. Also to be said is that at the back of the mind of the Court is the

consideration of doing substantial justice between the parties so as to hear the dispute on the merit so that the Court is not hindered by technicality which would circumvent the placing of all the cards on the table for a full determination of the grievance of a party on one side and the other side which could present a picture different from what an appellant is persuading the Court to accept as correct. SeeLong-John v Blakk (1998) 6 NWLR (pt. 555) 524 at 542; Oladejo & Anor v Adeyemi & Ors (2003) 3 NWLR (pt. 647) 25 at 41; Sanusi v Ayoola (1992) 23 NSC (Pt. 111) 420 at 431. Ogar v James (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 722) 621 at 636; Williams & Ors v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (1982) NSCC 36 at 39.; Ikechukwu v Nwoye (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt.1397) 227 at 239.
A cursory look at the judgment of the Court of Appeal basis of this proposed appeal would show that the Court below dismissed applicant’s appeal seeking to set aside Exhibit A1, the judgment of the trial Court. Also grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the applicant’s Notice of Appeal, Exhibit A3 and particulars thereto show that the said grounds are of pure of law to which appeal can lie as of right and

leave not necessary to be first obtained to appeal. See Section 233 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and those can sustain the appeal as the Notice of Appeal on that is valid and competent.
I rely on Ogbechie v Onochie (1986) 2 FWLR (Pt. 23) 484; First Bank of Nigeria v T.S.A. Ind. Ltd (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247 at 291-292.
It is therefore understandable that applicant exercising an abundance of caution seeks leave for the other grounds of appeal which colouration whether of law or facts or mixed law and facts, he is not sure of and he should not be hindered in that regard and have that option scuttled. See Ojora & Ors v Odunsi (1964) NSCC 34 at 37; Nalsa & Team Associates v NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 212) 652 at 669.
I would state as has been reiterated in numerous judicial authorities that a single ground of appeal competent can sustain an appeal brought as of right without leave in the face of other grounds that have been marred by the non leave as they are of facts or mixed law and facts since those

impeding grounds could either be abandoned or struck out without the Court getting into the appeal with the issue restricted to the only surviving ground. In this case, grounds 1, 2 and 3 are valid on their own being of pure law, consequently the appeal survives. See Ene v Asikpo (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 477 at 512; Akeredolu v Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.25) 710 at 733-734; Erisi v Idika (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 503 at 513; Tsokwa Oil Marketing Company v B.O.N. Ltd (2002) 5 SC (Pt.11) 64-68.
The application under discourse is to be considered within the Rules of the Court and particularly, Order 2, Rule 31 (1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1985 (as amended). The Rules further prescribe for the extension of time to do anything within the said rules and the applicant to provide the Court with good and substantial reasons why he did not appeal and seek leave to appeal within the statutorily stipulated period and go further to show by the grounds of appeal, why the appeal should be heard on time. See Sections 6 (6) (a) and 36 (1) CFRN; Long-John v Blakk (supra) at 542.

Taking a close look at the application and accompanying document including the supporting affidavits and exhibits, the applicants has shown good and substantial reasons for not seeking leave on time which delay was not of applicant’s making since the Court below did not release the judgment within time and so brought out a possible dual liability for the delay being mistake of the Registry of the Court below and that of applicant’s counsel thus making it imperative that the Court not visit the punishment on a hapless litigant. See Duke v Akpabuyo L.G. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 130 at 150-151; Yusuf v Obasanjo & Ors. (2003) 9-10 SC 53 at 79-80; Afribank v Trade Bank Plc(1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 437) 445 at 451; Ibodo v Enarofia (1980) NSCC 195 at 200-201, Bowaji v Adediwura (1976) 6 SC 143 at 147.
It must be brought to the fore that the length of time that elapsed or the period of the delay before bringing an application is not a material factor to be considered on whether an extension of time is to be favourably donated to an applicant. This is because what matters is whether the reasons for the delay are good and substantial not the length of time of the delay.

I rely on Ahmed v Trade Bank Plc (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 437) 445; Dalorima v Yale (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt.1137) 409 at 425; 429; CBN v UTB (Nig.) Ltd (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 694 at 703; Nwora v Nwabueze (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1271) 467 at 497- 498; Iyalabani Co Ltd v Bank of Baroda (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 387) 20 at 26.
Again as hurdle for an applicant is to show that the proposed grounds of appeal disclose arguable issues and that is not to say he has to show if the appeal will succeed on those grounds. See Ikenta Best (Nig) Ltd v A. G. Rives State (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 612 at 620-621.
I would venture to posit that where as in this case, the application has brought out grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal on jurisdiction and in line with the stance guided by law and Rule of the Supreme Court, even if no good reasons exist or brought out for the delay, the application is taken as on good standing and would be granted. See Ngere & Anor v Okuruket & Ors (2014) 5 SC (Pt.11) 1 at 31-32; Anachebe v Ijeoma & Ors (2014) 6-7 AX (Pt.11) 1 at 20-21.

All said and done in this application, considered alongside the opposing views of the other side, clearly the applicant has met the conditions for a favourable consideration of the application. There are sufficient materials to hold on to, to see why the delay in the application, the substantiality of the grounds of appeal and the added impetus of the prayers for deeming orders of the amended grounds of appeal, the compiled and transmitted record of Appeal and the appellant’s brief showing quite clearly that applicant is not pushing for a delayed action, rather is anxious for a fast forwarding of the process to kick-start an early hearing of the appeal. See Alawiye v Ogunsanya (2012) 12 SC (Pt. 111) 1 at 36-37; Ikechukwu v Nwoye (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 227 at 240-242; Section 27 (2) (a) and (4) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 (as amended).
From the foregoing and the better articulated lead Ruling, this application is meritorious and I grant it as I abide by the consequential orders made.

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the ruling just delivered by my Learned brother, Ejembi Eko JSC and I entirely agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusion arrived thereat. An application for extension of time to appeal, such as the instant application, requires the exercise of the discretionary power of the Court before which it is argued, and like every discretionary power, it must be exercised judicially and judiciously upon sufficient materials. For an application for extension of time to appeal or to seek leave to appeal, the applicant only requires to comply with Order 2 Rule 31(2)(a)(b) and (c) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended) 2014. This rule provides as follows:-
“Every application for an enlargement of time in which to appeal or in which to apply for leave shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth good, and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal or to apply for leave to appeal within the prescribed period. There shall be exhibited or annexed to such affidavit:-
(a) a copy of the judgment from which it is intended to appeal;
(b) a copy of other proceedings necessary to support the complaints against the judgment; and

(c) ground of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.”
In the instant application, the Applicant has deposed to an affidavit to which a copy of the judgment from which the Applicant intended to appeal is duly annexed. The reasons for the Applicant’s failure to appeal within the prescribed period, as highlighted in the lead ruling, including the fact that the present application seeks to regularize an earlier notice of appeal which was filed on the 2nd July, 2015 have been clearly deposed to in the supporting affidavit. Applicant has also set out grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. Learned Senior Counsel has no objection to these twin requirements. By a long line of decided cases by this Court, once an applicant is able to show good and substantial reasons why his appeal was not filed within the prescribed period and has set out grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard, the application is always granted.

See Bowaje v Adediwura (1976) 6 SC 143; Ahmadu v Salau (1974) 11 SC43, Alagbe v Abimbola (1978)2 SC 39, Williams v Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (1982)1-2 SC145; Ogbu v Urum (1981)4 SC.1, N.I.W.A. v S.P.D.C.N. Ltd (2008)13 NWLR (Pt. 1103) 48, University of Lagos v Aigoro (1985)1 NWLR (Pt.1)143, Yonwuren v Modern Signs Ltd (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.2) 244.
Mr. Anachebe, Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Respondents objection is on the basis that Exhibits A2 – A9 are not certified and that they are inadmissible in evidence. In a further objection, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that several pages of the record and several documents were not certified. By the nature of the objection, I am of the firm view that Learned Counsel has conceded to the application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal. This is so because he has not attacked the twin requirement of good and substantial reasons why the appeal was not filed within the prescribed period and by grounds of appeal which prima facie show good reason why the appeal should be heard. Since the application is to regularize an earlier

valid notice of appeal, I am prepared to exercise my discretion in favour of the Applicant. However, prayers1-3 seek for the transmission of the record of appeal. The issue of whether some documents contained in the bundle of documents sought to be transmitted, have or have not been certified can only be looked into if the record is before this Court. This Court will have no jurisdiction to look into a record of appeal that is not properly placed before it with a view to determine whether the pages and some documents included therein are certified or not.
In Abdulkareem v Incar Nigeria Ltd (1984) 15 NSCC 603 at 617 this Court, per Eso JSC said:-
“The matter was not before the Court of Appeal, and that Court has no jurisdiction to deal with a matter not placed before it. A Court of Law is only concerned with the lis before it. It is not an all purpose dispute settling Tribunal. It is true Ubi Juris Ibi remedium, yet the Court guided by Law and Constitution and also rules should never interfere except parties bring their complain.”
See Sodeinde v Registered Trustees Ahmadiyya movement in Islam (1982) 2 SC NLR 284 at 326.

There is therefore no way for the Court to look into the record and declare that its pages and the documents contained therein are not certified. That objection is premature and it is accordingly over ruled.
With these few words and the more detailed reasoning in the lead ruling of my learned brother Ejembi Eko, JSC which I adopt as mine, this application shall be and it is granted as prayed.
I endorse all the consequential orders made in the lead ruling including order as to costs.

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the Ruling of my learned brother Ejembi Eko, JSC, just delivered. I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion reached. I do not have anything to add. The application is hereby granted by me.

Appearances:

Joy Okungbowa Adesina, SAN with him, Adolphus Nwachukwu, Esq. and A. I. Oyewole, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Chima Ede, Esq. for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

A. B. Anachebe, SAN with him, A.O. Okpallah, Esq., F.E. Anachebe, Esq., Uchenna Uche, Esq. and B.O. Anachebe, Esq. for the 3rd Respondent For Respondent(s)

Appearances

Joy Okungbowa Adesina, SAN with him, Adolphus Nwachukwu, Esq. and A. I. Oyewole, Esq. For Appellant

AND

Chima Ede, Esq. for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

A. B. Anachebe, SAN with him, A.O. Okpallah, Esq., F.E. Anachebe, Esq., Uchenna Uche, Esq. and B.O. Anachebe, Esq. for the 3rd Respondent For Respondent

LawCare Nigeria

ALHAJI YEKINI JIMOH v. THE HON. MINISTER FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY & ORS(2018)

admin

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT LAW FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IN NIGERIA

Protecting Minority Shareholders in a Nigerian Company

Agency and Distribution Agreements in Nigeria: What You Need to Know

Franchising Your Business in Nigeria: Key Legal Considerations

admin

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED