Just Decided Cases

BENDEL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD VS ANGLOCAN DEVELOPMENT CO (NIG.) LTD

Legalpedia 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



CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Esther ORIAH

Recent Posts

RENCO NIGERIA LIMITED V Q OIL & GAS SERVICES LIMITED & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-08) Legalpedia 42685 (CA) In the Court of Appeal PORT HARCORT Mon Aug…

6 days ago

ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE OF NIGER CONTRACTOR CO. OF NIGERIA VS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF KADUNA STATE

Legalpedia Citation: Legalpedia SC KIZW In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Thu Sep 11, 2025…

6 days ago

COMMISSONER OF POLICE, WESTERN REGION VS ALOYSIUS IGWE & 2 ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-01) Legalpedia 19912 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

7 days ago

CLEMENT AKRAN VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-02) Legalpedia 45350 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

7 days ago

J. A. IREM VS OBUBRA DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 03348 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

7 days ago

JOHN KHALIL KHAWAM AND CO VS K CHELLARAM AND SONS (NIGERIA)

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 49115 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

7 days ago