ADIATU LADUNNI VS OLUDOYIN ADEKUNLE KUKOYI & ORS
August 23, 2025PIUS NWAOGA VS THE STATE
August 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 91761
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 3, 1972
Suit Number: SC. 47/71
CORAM
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UDOMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FATAYI-WILLIAMS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
BENDEL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Respondent brought a civil summon under the Undefended list claiming £2,043.11(Two Thousand and Forty Three Pounds Eleven Shillings) from the Defendant/Appellant. When the case came up for hearing, the Plaintiff asked for Judgement on the grounds that the Defendant had not filed notice of intention to defend the action but the court adjourned till 28th September for proof of service. On July 20th the Plaintiff applied for accelerated hearing but the case was adjourned to 3rd Sept for hearing and it was then again adjourned to Oct 5th for mention on 28th of September the substantive suit came up for hearing and the judge who was not aware of the Order for proof of service adjourned to 5th October and gave Judgement in favour of the Plaintiff.
HELD
The appeal was allowed. The judgment of Adedipe, J., in suit LD/397/70 delivered in the High Court of Lagos on 5th October, 1970, was set aside and ordered that the case be remitted to the High Court of Lagos for hearing on the merits, each party being at liberty to ask for pleadings if it be so desired.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial Judge should not have entertained the application of the plaintiffs/respondents and given judgment for them in default of notice of intention to defend the action.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EXTENTION OF TIME
“I agree that until a judgment has been arrived at upon the merits, an extension of time may be allowed for rectifying a mistake or oversight. Up to that time both parties may be considered as standing upon an equal footing; the questions between them are still open, and it is doubtful which of their opposing contentions is correct: each party has a right to have the dispute determined upon the merits, and courts should do everything to favour the fair trial of the questions between them…” Per Thesiger, LJ, in the case of Collins v. Vestry of Paddington (1880) 5 QBD Adopted by FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC
CASES CITED
Ojikutu v. Odeh 14 WACA 640 at p. 641
Collins v. Vestry of Paddington (1880) 5 QBD
STATUTES REFERRED TO
