This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 23rd day of February, 1984. That court dismissed the adjournment. In that court, the compliant of counsel for the appellant was that he had not been served with the record of appeal. On hearing this, the court made copy available for him to read and study. He was given 4 hours to study the record and then argue the appeal. This he failed to do. The court below then dismissed the appeal. Appellant has attacked the refusal to grant the adjournment saying that it was humanly impossible for Mr. Esan, counsel for the appellant, to have gone through the 146-page record, study and assimilate it and argue the appeal with the skill and expertise it deserves. He also referred to the absence of 3 exhibits – H, J and K which were not copied from the record and submitted that a proper consideration of these facts would have led the court to a different exercise of its discretion.