CORAM

---

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE – – JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO – – JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN – – JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ATEM AZUMBAKA

2.TSAVZER ADIA

3. TERZUNGWE AZUMBAKA   (Suing For Themselves and on Behalf the Azumbaka Family)

4. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FEDERATION

 

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By a Motion, the Applicant prayed this Court for an order extending the time within, which the Applicant may apply for leave to appeal, extension of time to appeal and an order granting leave to the Applicant to appeal the Ruling of the Federal High Court delivered on the 18th of June, 2014 and the judgment of the same Court delivered on the 2nd of November, 2017.

The fulcrum of this application is that the appeal filed by the Applicant initially was struck out due to Counsel’s negligence, and the failure to prosecute the appeal after it was struck was due to counsel’s negligence, and on that note, Applicant relied on 3 documents attached to the Application in urging this Court to grant her trinity prayers.

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents, on their part in their counter affidavit contended that the Applicant has not advanced any good and cogent reason for her failure to appeal the Ruling of 2014, and the judgment of 2017, as the delay in bring the application is inordinate and unreasonable considering that the Ruling of June, 2014, is well over six years now, while the Judgment of 2017, is over 3 years now. They further contended that the Applicant had earlier appeal the final judgment of the trial court to this Court, accompanying same with an application for leave to appeal, but the appeal and the application were all dismissed by this Court in the year 2020. The 1st – 3rd Respondents had since 2020, applied for the execution of the judgment of the trial court in the substantive suit and same was granted and executed. Moreover, upon full execution of the judgment of the trial court, 1st – 3rd Respondents took possession of the property in question and have already transferred same to third parties whom the Applicant not wants to frustrate by this application.

 

---

HELD

---

Application Succeeds

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether in the circumstance, the Applicant has advanced any cogent, good and substantial reasons justifying the grant of this application?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

STATUTORY PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT TO THE COURT OF APPEAL

---

“By virtue of Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Act, where a person desires to appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, he should give notice of appeal or notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by the Rules of court and within the time allowed, namely: (a) in an appeal, in a civil cause or matter, fourteen (14) days where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision and three (3) months where the appeal is against a final judgment: (b) In an appeal, in a criminal cause or matter, ninety (90) days from the date of the decision appealed against. See Idris v. Audu (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 908) 612 CA, Alamieyeseigha v. C.J.N. (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 906) 60 CA, FGN v. A.I.C. Ltd (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 970) 337 CA and BOSIEC v. Kachalla (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 962) 587 CA. PER M.S. HASSAN, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

None

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Act

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT