Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

CITEC Intl Estate Ltd V. v Francis & Ors (2014) CLR 2(o) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 21st 2014

Brief

  • Setting aside order or judgment of court
  • Leave to appeal
  • Fair hearing
  • Funtus Officio
  • Judgement
  • Natural Justice - Breach of rules of
  • Official acts – presumption of regularity of
  • Contentious matters – whether same are heard in chambers
  • Counter-affidavit filed in reply to an application for leave to appeal
  • Court – power thereof to hear applications in chambers
  • Supreme Court – whether can sit on appeal over its own judgment
  • Section 233(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 233(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 213(4) of the 1999 Constitution 1999 (as amended)
  • Section 235 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 236 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 27(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 2004
  • Section 27(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2004
  • Section 27(4) of the Supreme Court Act 2004
  • Order 2 Rule 28 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended)
  • Order 2 Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended)
  • Order 6 Rule 2(1) & (5) Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended)
  • Order 6 Rule 2(5) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended)
  • Order 6 Rule 3(1) of the Supreme Court Rules
  • Order 2 Rule 29(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended in 2008)
  • Order 6 Rule (2) of the Supreme Court Rules
  • Order 6 Rule (4) of the Supreme Court Rules

Facts

By their motion on notice filed on 9/2/2012, the 1st - 4th respondents/applicants (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) sought the following reliefs from this Court:

  • 1
    An order setting aside the order/ruling made by this Honourable Court in chambers on the 28th of September 2011 wherein the appellants/respondents were granted the trinity prayers to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division in Josiah Oluwole Francis & 3 Ors. Vs CITEC International Estate Ltd. & 6 Ors., CA/A/179/M/2007 contained in the motion on notice dated and filed on the 5th of April, 2011.
  • 2
    An order restoring the motion on notice dated and filed on the 5th of April, 2011 to the Cause List for hearing on its merits.

The grounds of the application have been fully set out in the lead ruling.

In a nutshell, the applicants contend that due to very late service on them on 20th September 2011 of the appellants'/respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) motion filed on 5th April 2011 for the trinity prayers, they were only able to file their counter affidavit in opposition and their written address in respect thereof one day to the hearing of the application, which was heard in chambers on 28th September 2011.

It is their contention that having filed their processes just one day to the hearing, the processes could not have been brought to the Court's attention, which led to the granting of all the respondents' reliefs as if the application was unopposed. It is the applicants' further contention that the Court was misled into granting the application without affording them a hearing thereby rendering the order made a nullity.

They noted that even though learned counsel for the respondents undertook to effect service of the application of the parties, this was not done until eight days before the application was due to be heard. That although the applicants filed their processes within the time prescribed by the rules of this Court, the time was too short for the processes to be brought to the Court's attention.

It is the contention of the respondents on the other hand that the complaint is unfounded as the applicants were duly served eight days before the hearing of the application and that all relevant processes were before the Court when it sat in chambers on 28/11/2011. They are of the view that the present application is merely an attempt to "surreptitiously induce the Supreme Court to review its valid order of 28th September, 2011".

The 5th respondent (Corporate Affairs Commission) did not file any process in respect of the application and does not oppose it.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not the order of this Court made in Chambers on the 28th of...
    • Read More