LEONARD OKERE VS TITUS NLEM
July 11, 2025ODINAKA VS MOGHALU
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1992-04) Legalpedia 85524 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Apr 10, 1992
Suit Number: SC 61/1991
CORAM
BELLO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAWU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
O. OLATAWURA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKPATA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NIPOL LIMITED
APPELLANTS
BIOKU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY CO. LTD.
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was a co-operation agreement between the appellant and the respondent. It was agreed in the said agreement that “in case of any dispute as to the operation of this agreement, any such dispute arising therefrom shall be referred to an arbitrator agreed to by both parties. The arbitrator shall decide in accordance with Nigerian law and his decision shall be binding on both parties”. A dispute arose between the parties when the appellant determined the whole contract.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that an application for extension of time can only be brought if the applicant is aware that the time to challenge the award has expired or the court has ruled that the time within which to challenge the award has expired.
ISSUES
When our Rule of Court states that “the rule for the time being in force in England” shall apply, does the expression mean the rule in force in England when our Rule was made or any rule subsequently made in England after our Rule had been made?
Whether the filing of the application outside the period was a mere irregularity which could not render the proceedings a nullity, granted that the time limit is 21 days
RATIONES DECIDENDI
MEANING OF “THE RULE FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN ENGLAND
“The position is that where a Statute or Rule of court states that a particular law or rule of practice ‘for the time being in force’ somewhere should be applied in certain cases, the law or rule of practice, which becomes incorporated by reference into the Statute or Rule of court is that which is in operation at the commencement of the statute or rule of court and not future law or rule of practice from the same source unless it is patently clear that the legislature intended such an unusual purpose.” Per AKPATA, JSC
RESPONSIBILITY OF COUNSEL OR PARTY TO APPLY FOR EXTENTION OF TIME
“Where a party or his counsel finds that his cause or matter is incompetent because it was filed out of time, it is his responsibility to apply for extension of time to put things right. He should not blame the court for his woes arising from his failure to do the right thing.” Per AKPATA, JSC
CASES CITED
Flora Godwin v. Naomi Crowther
Bashir v. Commissioner of Lands (1960)1 All ER 117
National Bank Nig. Ltd. v. The Are Brothers Nig. Ltd. (1977) 6 SC. 97
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Administration of Estate Act 1925
The of Court of Appeal Act
