Just Decided Cases

NIPOL LIMITED VS BIOKU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY CO. LTD.

Legalpedia 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

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

legaladmin

Recent Posts

RENCO NIGERIA LIMITED V Q OIL & GAS SERVICES LIMITED & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-08) Legalpedia 42685 (CA) In the Court of Appeal PORT HARCORT Mon Aug…

5 months ago

ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE OF NIGER CONTRACTOR CO. OF NIGERIA VS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF KADUNA STATE

Legalpedia Citation: Legalpedia SC KIZW In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Thu Sep 11, 2025…

5 months ago

COMMISSONER OF POLICE, WESTERN REGION VS ALOYSIUS IGWE & 2 ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-01) Legalpedia 19912 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

5 months ago

CLEMENT AKRAN VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-02) Legalpedia 45350 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

5 months ago

J. A. IREM VS OBUBRA DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 03348 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

5 months ago

JOHN KHALIL KHAWAM AND CO VS K CHELLARAM AND SONS (NIGERIA)

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 49115 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

5 months ago