THE STATE v. AMOS RUFUS
April 29, 2021UMAR MOHAMMED v. THE STATE & ORS
April 29, 2021UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC v. YUSUF MOSHOOD AYANGBADE
(2021) Legalpedia (CA) 11113
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Monday, March 29, 2021
Suite Number: CA/YL/131M/2020
CORAM
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA
BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC || YUSUF MOSHOOD AYANGBADE
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent filed this suit against the Applicant before the National Industrial Court on the 19/02/2017 for declaration that his suspension and subsequent dismissal by the Applicant is wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. At the conclusion of the case, judgment was entered against the Applicant. The Applicant being dissatisfied with the said judgment appealed and filed a motion on Notice seeking an order of court enlarging the time within which to seek leave to appeal, and enlargement of time within which to appeal out of time against the decision of the National Industrial Court. The Court granted the prayers in the Motion on Notice and the Appellant properly filed its appeal before this Court in Appeal No. CA/YL/106/2019 between UBA Plc. Vs. Yusuf Moshood Ayangbade. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection urging this court to set aside its order granting the prayers in the Motion on Notice on grounds that this Court lacked the jurisdiction to allow the Applicant to appeal in Appeal No. CA/YL/106/2019 having struck out same. The Court upheld the Preliminary Objection and struck out the appeal on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to allow the Applicant to appeal having struck out same. The Applicant has yet come before this Court seeking an Order of this Hon. Court for extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal to this Hon. Court, leave to appeal and extension of time within which to appeal from the decision of the trial Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
Issues Of Determination:
Not Available
RATIONES
“On this point, the Supreme Court in the case of Efet Vs. INEC (2011) LPELR (8109) SC Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC (now CJN) stated: “To consider the merit of this appeal is like beating a dead horse. It serves no useful purpose. It is an exercise in futility. Courts of law dissipate energy on live issues. Courts of law for long have left academic issues to the academia. They rather concentrate on live issues. I find the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents in this Appeal very sound and sustainable. I sustain them. I have no reason to go into the merit of the appeal as courts do not make orders in vain. See Makinde V. Akinwale (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 399) 5; N.N.S.C. Ltd V. Sabana (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 23. I accordingly strike out the appeal. This affects the Cross Appeal as well. It is also struck out by me. I make no order as to costs in the main appeal and cross appeal”
STATUS(ES) REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal Rules 2016|
COUNSELS
1. Chief L. D. Nzadon Esq. with T. J. Jojo Esq. for the Applicant.|2. Johnson Olu Adebambo Esq. with Kenneth Babuna Bathodo Esq. for the Respondent.||||
INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?
