CORAM

M.L. UWAIS

M.L. UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

U. MOHAMMED

A.I. IGUH

PARTIES

THOMAS ENIYAN OLUMESAN APPELLANTS

AYODELE OGUNDEPO RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiffs claim is for declaration of title, possession and injunction against the defendant.

HELD

The conclusion I finally reach is that this appeal must succeed and it is hereby allowed. The judgment and orders of the court below given on the 9th March, 1993 dismissing the appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution are hereby set aside. In substitution thereof, the appellant’s application for an adjournment of the appeal in order to regularise his position is hereby allowed. The appeal is remitted to the court below for hearing de novo on its merits before another panel of justices of that court. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal in the sum of N1000.00 in this court and N500.00 in the court below.

ISSUES

“(1) Whether the appellant was accorded hearing or fair hearing before the oral application of the respondent for the dismissal of the appeal (in the Court of Appeal) was granted and the effect of same? (2) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal followed or adopted the right procedure in dealing with and dismissing the appeal of the appellants? (3) Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal ought not to have considered and granted an adjournment to the appellant to regularise his appeal?; and (4) Whether in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing the appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution?”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Gukas v. Jos Int. Breweries Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 614 at page 623 and|Alhaji Mohammed and Another v. Lasisi Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.133) 458 at page 485.|Anisuaba v. Emodi (1975) 2 S.C. 9 at 13

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None.|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT