PRINCE ASHIMIU ISIAKA & ORS v. SAIDI OGUNDIMU & ORS
June 5, 2025MOHAMMED MARI KIDA V A.D. OGUNMOLA
June 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 72075
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 16, 2006
Suit Number: SC. 381/2001
CORAM
IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SAIDI OGUNDIMU & 3 ORS[For and on behalf of themselves and the Ogundimu Family of Ota] APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 7th – 12th Defendants/Appellants applied to the Court of Appeal for extension of time within which to appeal and to seek leave to appeal, as well as for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered eighteen months earlier due to the death of their counsel. Their application was denied on the ground that they did not successfully explain why they did not appeal within time
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The Ruling of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the Applicants/Appellants are to file their Notice and Grounds of Appeal within sixty (60) days from today
ISSUES
Whether or not the applicant showed good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within time
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SUBSTITUTION OF DISCRETION OF LOWER COURT BY APPELATE TRIBUAL
‘The appellate tribunal is not at liberty merely to substitute its own exercise of discretion for the discretion already exercised by the judge. In other words, appellate authorities ought not to reverse the order merely because they would themselves have exercised the original discretion, ad(sic) it attached to them, in a different way. But if the appellate tribunal reaches the clear conclusion that there has been a wrongful exercise of discretion in that no weight, or no sufficient weight, has been given to relevant considerations … then the reversal of the order on appeal maybe justified.’” Per Bairamian JSC In Enekebe V. Enekebe (1964) J All NLR 95 at 100 (Reprint)’ Quoted by G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC.
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME
“This court would readily exercise its discretion to extend the periods prescribed for doing an act if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the failure by a party to do the act within the period prescribed was caused by the negligence or inadvertence of his counsel.” Per Bello, JSC in Bowaje V. Adediwura . Quoted by G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC
DISCRETION CONFERRED ON THE TRIAL JUDGE
“The discretion conferred on the trial judge is unfettered but there is a right of appeal, and, to quote from Lord Simon’s speed) in Blunt V. Blunt [1943] A.C. 517 at p.526
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
‘If it can be shown that the court acted under a misapprehension of fact in that it cither gave weight to irrelevant or unproved matters or omitted to take into account matters that are relevant, there would, in my opinion, be ground for an appeal. In such a case the exercise of discretion might be impeached, because the court’s discretion will have been exercised on wrong or inadequate materials, but, as was recently pointed in this House in another connexion in Charles Osenlon V. Johnston [1942] A.C. 130, 138
CASES CITED
Bowaje V. Adediwura (1976) 6 S.C 143 Blunt V. Blunt [1943] A.C. 517 at p.526: Charles Osenlon V. Johnston [1942] A.C. 130, 138 Bairamian JSC in Enekebe V. Enekebe (1964) J All NLR 95 at 100 (Reprint)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
