W.A. OMONUWA V NAPOLEON OSHODIN & ANOR
July 24, 2025GODWIN JOSIAH V THE STATE
July 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1985) Legalpedia (SC) 11081
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 25, 1985
Suit Number: SC. 32/1984
CORAM
IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAWU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS & PROFESSOR J.F.A. AJAYI (Vice-Chancellor APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent claimed jointly and severally against the appellants at the trial court for a declaration that he was the Deputy Chief Engineer of the University and that the purported anticipatory breach of contract between he and the appellants was null and void.
HELD
The Court held that it is clear that in the exercise of its discretion to refuse to grant adjournment the Court of Appeal not only gave weight to unproved and irrelevant matters but it also failed to take into account relevant considerations to the issue. These are my reasons for interfering with the decision of that Court.
ISSUES
Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal failed to exercise their discretion judicially in refusing the application for adjournment and in dismissing the appeal thereat for want of prosecution. -.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ADJOURNMENTS
“The question therefore whether or not to grant an adjournment is a matter within the discretion of that Court. It is well settled that if judicial discretion has been exercised bona fide uninfluenced by irrelevant considerations and not arbitrarily or illegally by the lower court the general rule is that an appeal court will not ordinarily interfere”- Bello, J .S.C
ON WHEN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION
“Thus an appeal court may interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion if it is shown that there has been a wrongful exercise of the discretion such as where the tribunal acted under misconception of law or under misapprehension of fact in that it either gave weight to irrelevant or unproved matters or it omitted to take into account matters that are relevant or where it exercised or failed to exercise the discretion on wrong or inadequate materials and in all other cases where it is in the interest of justice to interfere”- Bello, J .S.C
CASES CITED
1. Oroke v. Ede (1964) NNLR. 118
2. Enekebe v. Enekebe (1964) 1 ALL N.L.R. 102 at 106
3. Demuren v. Asuni (1967) 1 ALL N.L.R. 94 at 101
4. Mobil Oil v. Federal Board of Inland Revenue (1977) 3 S.C.97 at 141
5. Sonekan v. Smith (1967) 1 ALL N.L.R. 329
6. Solanke v. Aiibola (1968) I.ALL N .L.R. 46 at 52.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Court of Appeal Rules, 1981
