GODWIN IDOMA & ANOR VS THE STATE
August 15, 2025JESSE GEORGE VS THE STATE
August 15, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1973) Legalpedia (SC) 51815
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 26, 1973
Suit Number: SC. 115/1970
CORAM
COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
REV. MOSES A. ABIEGBESAMASON IKOLIMIIROBO EFEKAROIROBO OKPE (For themselves and on behalf of the Descendants of Ekpo in Igbide and Owodokpokpo villages in Isoko Division) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the plaintiffs claim for want of prosecution. This action was commenced by a Writ of Summons, the plaintiffs claim against the defendants are, a declaration of title to the piece or parcel of land, a certain amount of money being general damages for trespass, and perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants their agents and/or servants from further going on the land.
HELD
The appeal succeeded and was allowed.
ISSUES
That the learned trial Judge had not exercised his discretion judicially in dismissing the application for extension of time and in dismissing the action for want of prosecution
RATIONES DECIDENDI
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RESTATE THE PRINCIPLE UNDER WHICH A DISCRETIONARY POWER IS EXERCISED BY A COURT
“It is not necessary to re-state the principle under which a discretionary power is exercised by a court. It is, however, necessary to point out that in deciding to exercise such a discretion, local conditions should always be taken into consideration.” Pre G. S. SOWEMIMO, JSC.
IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT PARTIES SHOULD BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEIR RIGHTS
“It is in the interest of justice that parties should be afforded reasonable opportunity for their rights to be investigated and determined on the merits. What is a reasonable time to do some act or acts depends on many circumstances for different occasions.” Per G. S. SOWEMIMO, JSC.
DISMISSING AN ACTION FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION DOES NOT GIVE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT
“To dismiss an action for want of prosecution does not give judgment in favor of the defendants nor does it prohibit the plaintiffs from filing a fresh action. It is therefore in the interest of both parties that they should not be subjected to any undue delay and further expenses in order to have their rights determined.” Per G. S. SOWEMIMO, JSC.
CASES CITED
Clough v. Clough (1968) 1 All ER1179.
Allen v. Sir Alfred Mcalphine & Sons Ltd. (1968) 1 All ER 543.
Eaton v. Storer (1883) 22 Ch. D. 91 at page 92
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
