AFRIJET AIRLINES LIMITED .Vs. PROF.GBOLAHAN ELIAS, SAN & ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

AFRIJET AIRLINES LIMITED .Vs. PROF.GBOLAHAN ELIAS, SAN & ANOR

NAHEL BERNARD MONSOUR V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025
ANCHOR OCEAN LIMITED .V. BONO ENERGY LIMITED & 2 ORS
April 11, 2025
NAHEL BERNARD MONSOUR V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025
ANCHOR OCEAN LIMITED .V. BONO ENERGY LIMITED & 2 ORS
April 11, 2025
Show all

AFRIJET AIRLINES LIMITED .Vs. PROF.GBOLAHAN ELIAS, SAN & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 74119

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT LAGOS JUDICIAL

Fri May 11, 2018

Suit Number: CA/L/786M/2017

CORAM


YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL


PARTIES


AFRIJET AIRLINES LIMITED (In Receivership)

APPELLANTS 


1. PROF.GBOLAHAN ELIAS, SAN (The Receiver/Manager of Afrijet Airlines Ltd         appointed by Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria)

2. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (The Corporation that appointed Prof. Gbolahan Elias, SAN as the Receiver/Manager of Afrijet Airlines Ltd)

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal arising from an application filed by the Applicant seeking an order granting the Applicant an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, leave to appeal and an order extending the time within which the Applicant can file its notice and grounds of appeal. The Applicants reason for failure to appeal within time was due to an error of counsel in thinking that an appeal on jurisdiction is not a final decision which resulted to their applications in CA/L/244/2017 wherein grounds 1-15 was struck out by which time the time for leave had expired. It was the Applicant’s contention that he has 32 grounds out of which 15 were struck out and judgment was delivered on merits in grounds 16-32 and that he has appealed against the judgment on merit in grounds 16-32 to the Supreme Court. The Respondent in opposing the application argued that it was an abuse of court process and should be dismissed. He stated that after this court gave judgment on the appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court the Applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court which is still pending and that should this motion be granted, the Applicant would have two appeals pending and this would amount to an abuse of court process.

 


HELD


Application Allowed

 


ISSUES


Whether the Applicant has made out a case for a grant of his application which is for the “TRINTY PRAYERS.”

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO


Court of Appeal Rules 2016|

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.