Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

National Inland waterways V. SPDC (2011) CLR 1(g) (SC)

Judgement delivered on JANUARY,28TH 2011

Brief

  • Ord 7, rule 7(1) Supreme Court Rules
  • Brief of argument filed without appeal been entered

Facts

By an application dated 29th day of April, 2010, the Applicant/Appellant prayed for the following reliefs:-

  • 1
    An order for enlargement of time within which the Appellant/Applicant may compile the Record of appeal.
  • 2
    An order deeming the Record of appeal already compiled by the Applicant and attached to the affidavit of Onyinye Akunna as Exhibited OA 1 as having been duly and properly compiled and served.
  • 3
    An order abridging the time within which the Appellant may file its Appellant's brief to the time of filing of this application and an order deeming as properly filed contemporaneously with this application.

The application was supported by an affidavit sworn to by one Onyinye Akunna. As disclosed in the affidavit, the Applicant had earlier applied to this Court for an order to compile the record of appeal out of time. This application was refused in chambers as some pages, of the proposed record of appeal were not legible. This Applicant was not notified of the outcome of this application and by the time it eventually knew the outcome of this application he had taken steps to obtain a clear copy of the illegible pages of the records which is the Oil Mining Licence (OML).

The Counsel to the Respondents who tendered the document at the trial Court was contacted so that a clear copy could be obtained, but this effort did not yield any result. As a last resort, the Applicant has to embark on retyping the document even at then; to get the document certified became another problem. Hence the Applicant has to start afresh the process of re-compiling the record, which is now attached as Exhibit OA 1.

The Respondent filed a counter/affidavit in which the Respondent averred that the application was filed to over-reach its pending application to dismiss the appeal for want of diligent prosecution, the Respondent denied the averments contained in the Applicant's affidavit. It was averred that the applicant was promptly informed of the outcome of its application heard in chambers which was refused. Applicant denied that he was informed about the illegibility of the document. It was then averred that this application is a ploy to delay the hearing of the substantive appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • i
    Whether the Applicant/Appellant has made out a case for...
Read More