CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

1. MR. KINGSLEY AMADI

 

---

ENG. ANTHONY EBODAGHE

 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
By a motion on notice, the Appellants/Applicants sought for an Order for extension of time within, which to apply to set aside the ruling/decision of this Honourable Court made on the 26th day of May 2015, dismissing Appeal No.CA/PH/428/2014, for want of diligent prosecution; to set aside the ruling/decision; and to restore the said Appeal back to the court’s cause list. The Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/428/2014 but failed to file their brief of argument as required by the Rules of this Court, the Respondent applied for dismissal of the appeal. On the date fixed for hearing of the motion which was undoubtedly to the knowledge of the Appellants’ counsel but was absent from Court and did not provide any information to the Court for his absence, the motion for dismissal of the appeal was heard and when it was found to be meritorious it was granted and the appeal was dismissed hence this application for setting aside of the order for dismissal and for the restoration of the appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

ISSUES: 1.Whether the decision/order of this Honourable Court made on the 26th day of May 2015 dismissing Appeal No CA/PH/428/2014 for want of diligent prosecution was null and void. 2.Whether this Honourable Court has the competence or jurisdiction to set aside the order made on the 25th day of May 2015 dismissing Appeal No. CA/PH/428/2014 for want of diligent prosecution.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

---

“Now the Supreme Court stated in the case of Tomtec Nigeria Limited V. FHA (2000)18 NWLR (PT.1173) 358 that courts of record have the inherent jurisdiction to set aside their judgment or order in appropriate cases or under some conditions which include when:
1).The judgment was obtained by fraud or deceit either in the court or of one of the parties.
2).The Judgment is a nullity.
3).It is obvious that the court was misled into giving judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it.
4).The judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction.
5).The proceedings (procedure) adopted was such as to deprive the decision or judgment of the character of a legitimate adjudication.
6).Where there is fundamental irregularity.
See also Odofin V. Olabanji (1996) 3 NWLR (PT. 435) 126. –

---

COMPETENCE OF COURT – WHEN IS A COURT COMPETENT?

---

“It is settled that a court is competent when; (1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one person or another; (2) the subject matter of the case is within jurisdiction, and no feature in the case prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction and (3) the case come before the court initiated by due process of law. See Madukolu & Ors V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587; Ajgo V. Alao (1986) LPELR-285-(SC). –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Rules, 2016|Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT