AYODELE JAMES V. MID-MOTORS NIGERIA CO. LTD
August 2, 2025MADAM ONI AMUDIPE V. CHIEF OGUNLEYE ARIJODI
August 2, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1978-11) Legalpedia (SC) 73111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Nov 3, 1978
Suit Number: SC. 4/1977
CORAM
CRAIG JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
FATAYI- WILLIAMS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA LTD
2. PAUL OGWUMA
3. LAMBERT NWAGBO NMECHA
APPELLANTS
DIKE NWORA (TRADING AS DICOL COMMODITY EXCAHNGE)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff (respondent) claimed from the defendants (appellants) jointly and severally, the sum of 3.75 million naira (N3,750,000) being anticipated profits accruing from a contract to supply cement entered into between the plaintiff and certain companies in 1974, the breach of which the defendants jointly and severally induced thus causing the plaintiff damage.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that where a defence has been filed out of time, the parties can, by consent, regularise the position or the court, provided the Statement of Defence discloses a substantial ground of defence, can do so by order either on application or suo motu.
ISSUES
Does non-compliance with the rules of court which prescribes the time for filing a pleading or other documents result in such pleading or documents being rendered void or treated as a nullity?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRINCIPAL CONSIDERATION IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
Discretion must be exercised at all times in the interest of justice – Fatayi- Williams J.S.C
STATUS OF A DOCUMENT FILED OUT OF TIME
A document, such as the Statement of Defence in the present case, if filed out of time is a voidable document. It remains a valid document until it is set aside – Fatayi- Williams J.S.C.
FILLING PLEADINGS WITHIN TIME
“The effect of this rule, in the circumstances of the present case, is that the defendant must serve his defence within fourteen days after the Statement of Claim had been served on him. Such a defence is in effect automatically served under the rules and not by order of court, unless, as had been done by the plaintiff in this case, there has been a motion for judgment, in which case, the court, instead of granting the motion, may extend the time for filing the Statement of Defence by order of court.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC
CASES CITED
MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. (1962) AC 152
Gibbings v. Strong (1884) 26 Ch. 66 (CA)
Gill v. Woodfin (1884) 25 Ch D 707 (CA);
Graves v. Terry (1882) 9 QBD 170;
Montagu v. Land Corporation 56 LT 730
Wallersteiner v. Moir (1974) 1 WLR 991
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
