MABEL AYANKOYA & ORS VS E. AINA OLUKOYA & ANOR
July 4, 2025CHRISTOPHER EMODI & ORS VS AKUNNIA RIGHT KWENTOH & ORS
July 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1996) Legalpedia (SC) 15517
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mon Feb 19, 1996
Suit Number: SC. 263/1993
CORAM
M.L. UWAIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
THOMAS ENIYAN OLUMESAN APPELLANTS
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
DISCRETION MUST BE EXERCISED ACCORDING TO COMMON SENSE
In this regard, it must be borne in mind and it is a well established principle of law that all discretions must be exercised according to common sense and according to justice and, at times, it may be necessary to lean backward over to ensure that parties are not punished for the negligence, inadvertence or error of their counsel. IGUH, JSC
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.
