CORAM

---

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal

Okon Efreti Abang Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. ALHAJA MOBOLANLE AYISAT ADEBIYI

2. ABDULQUADRI OLAWALE ADEBIYI

 

APPELLANTS 

---

MRS. AUGUSTINA OSHAM LEWIS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF WRIT, STATUTORY LIMITATION, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants, Alhaja Mobolanle Ayisat Adebiyi and Abdulquadri Olawale Adebiyi, initiated an action at the High Court of Ogun State seeking a declaration of title to land and other reliefs.Judgment was initially entered in favor of the appellants in 2007. However, the respondent, Mrs. Augustina Oshan Lewis, successfully applied to set aside the judgment on the grounds of non- service of the originating process. Following the setting aside of the judgment in 2016, the appellants filed an ex parte application in 2017, seeking an extension of time to renew the writ of summons, which had expired after the judgment was set aside.

The lower court refused the application, citing the twelve-year delay in renewing the writ and expressing concerns about legal uncertainties surrounding the competence of the writ. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed, arguing that the lower court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and judicially.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s decision, and granted the appellants application to renew the writ. The court found that the lower court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously by considering irrelevant matters. The case was remitted to the High Court for an accelerated hearing.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower court rightly refused the appellants’ application to renew the writ issued in 2005.

2. Whether the appellants provided sufficient grounds for the renewal of the writ.

3. Whether the lower court improperly considered extraneous matters in refusing the application.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RENEWAL OF WRIT-WHETHER THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL:

---

“The Court held that the lower court erred in refusing the appellants application for the renewal of the writ based on legal uncertainties. The refusal was premised on extraneous factors, and the appellants had sufficiently explained the delay in applying for renewal. The discretion was not exercised judicially and judiciously.”– Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA,

 

---

LIFESPAN OF A WRIT –WHETHER A WRIT CAN BE RENEWED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE LIFESPAN:

---

“The Court reaffirmed that a writ of summons can be renewed even after the expiration of its lifespan, provided that the applicant provides sufficient reasons for the delay. The renewal does not make the writ a nullity, but rather reactivates it for the purposes of service. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION-WHETHER THE LOWER COURT CONSIDERED EXTRANEOUS MATTERS IN REFUSING THE RENEWAL:

---

“The Court found that the lower court’s refusal was based on irrelevant considerations, such as the potential for legal uncertainties in the future. Judicial discretion must be exercised based on the facts and law applicable to the case, not on speculative concerns. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES –WHETHER THE 2014 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES WERE PROPERLY APPLIED:

---

“The Court reiterated that procedural rules governing the renewal of writs must be applied in accordance with the adjectival law in force at the time of the application. In this case, the High Court of Ogun State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2014 were correctly applied by the appellants, and the renewal should have been granted. – Per PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, JCA

 

---

STANDARD FOR INTERFERENCE WITH EXERCISE OF DISCRETION –WHETHER THE APPELLANTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO EXERCISE DISCRETION JUDICIALLY:

---

“The Court emphasized that an appellate court will only interfere with the exercise of discretion if it is shown that the lower court acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or considered extraneous matters. In this case, the appellants successfully demonstrated that the lower court did not exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT