INTERCONTRACTORS NIGERIA LIMITED VS NAT. PROVIDENT FUND MGT. BOARD
July 18, 2025SUNDAY OKODUWA AND ORS VS THE STATE
July 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1988-04) Legalpedia (SC) 41971
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 29, 1988
Suit Number: SC. 111/1987
CORAM
NNAMANI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MOBIL OIL (NIG.) LIMITED
APPELLANTS
CHIEF J. O. AGADAIGHO
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONTRACT-INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION-STAY OF EXECUTION -APPEAL.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant sought a declaration of the court that the dealer agreement between it and the respondent had determined and an injunction order restraining the respondent from further dealing with its property.
HELD
The Court held that the reasons given by the Court of Appeal in granting the application are not only inadequate but also irrelevant and cannot satisfy the principles laid down in numerous cases for granting a stay of execution
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously in granting in this case extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal as well as leave to appeal, as it did immediately after the conclusion of argument by counsel, without reference to the provisions of Order 3 Rule 4(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981, and without considering and following the binding decisions of this Honourable Court in Ibodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC. 42 ;(1980) 5-7 SC. (Reprint) 29 and University of Lagos v. Olaniyan (1985) 1 SC. 295; (1985) 1 NWLR. (Pt.1) 156 duly cited in that Court.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously in granting the Respondent extension of time within which to appeal and leave to appeal without seeing the relevant part of the proceedings in the High Court referred to in the Ruling of Court as well as in the proposed grounds of appeal exhibited in support of the application.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in granting to the Respondent a stay of execution pending the determination of his appeal from the High Court to that Court.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RECORDS OF APPEAL.
It is the duty of the Appellant to compile the record by himself unless the Court otherwise directs- M.L. UWAIS, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Ibodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC. 42 ;(1980) 5-7 SC. (Reprint) 29
2. University of Lagos v. Olaniyan (1985) 1 SC. 295; (1985) 1 NWLR. (Pt.1) 156
3. Ukpe Ibodo & Ors v. Iguasi Enarofia & Ors, (1980) 5-7 SC. 42
4. University of Lagos v. Olaniyan (1985) – 1 NWLR. 156
5. Egbe v. Onogun, (1972) 2 SC. (Reprint) 90; (1972) 1 All NLR. (Part 195) at p.99
6. Obeya Memorial Hospital v. Attorney-General of the Federation, (1987) 3 NWLR. (Pt.60) 325 at p.349.
7. P.O.P. Martins v. Nicannar Food Co. Ltd. & Anor. S.C. 203/1986 (1988) 2 NWLR. (Pt.74) p.75 judgment delivered on the 25th March, 1988
8. Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh, (1972) 12SC. (Reprint) 50; (1972) 1 All NLR. (Pt. 2) 483
9. Dada v. The University of Lagos & Ors (1971) 1 UILR. 344
10. Ebegbuna v. Ebegbuna, (1974) 3 WSCA. 23
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. High Court of Bendel State Law, Cap. 65 of the Laws of Bendel State, 1976
2. High Court of Bendel State (Civil Procedure) Rules, Cap. 65 of 1976
3. Supreme Court Rules, 1977
4. Supreme Court Rules, 1985
5. Court of Appeal Rules, 1981
6. Court of Appeal Act, 1976
