CORAM
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAWU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CEEKAY TRADERS LTD APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant had instituted an action against the respondent in the trial court for a declaration that they were entitled to the possession of the motor vehicles purportedly seized by the 3rd respondent under a Notice of Seizure and a declaration that the said vehicles are the exclusive property of and belong to the Plaintiffs. The claim was dismissed for want of diligent prosecution.?
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the trial Court was in error for dismissing the appellant’s suit without hearing Counsel after the refusal of the application for adjournment.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial Judge right in refusing to grant the Appellant’s application for adjournmentWhether, after refusing the application for adjournment, the learned trial Judge was not bound to invite the Appellant’s Counsel to proceed with his case before dismissing it.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION OF THE COURT
“It is settled that the question of whether or not to grant an adjournment in a matter is the discretion of the Court which discretion must always be exercised both judiciously and” Per KAWU, JSC
CASES CITED
University of Lagos & Anor v. M.I. Aigoro (1985) 1 NWLR. 329 at p. 333Ilona & Anor v. Dei & Anor (1971) 1 All NLR. 8President of Ijebu Province & Anor v. Memudu Lagunju (1955) 14 WACA. 549 at p. 552?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None