This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which dismissed the appeal before it for lack of filing briefs of argument. In his amended statement of claim the Respondent in this appeal claimed the following reliefs jointly and severally against the Appellants/Defendants:-
-
1
That by virtue of the Nigerian Legion Decree No. 37 of 1988 and the Regulations made there under, the Plaintiff is the rightful person to be Commandant-General of the 2nd Defendant and entitled to exercise the powers and functions thereof.
-
2
The merger of the office of Commandant-General, with that of the Chairman of the Council, of the 2nd Defendant and the purported exercise of the powers and functions of the two offices by the 1st Defendant is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
-
3
That the Plaintiff is still a member and employee of the 2nd Defendant entitled to his salaries and benefits per month from the 1st of July, 1991 till the date of judgment and thereafter.
-
4
That the purported deployment or adoption of deployment of the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant to Benin vide his letter NL/OP/32/18 of 11th June, 1999 and his (sic) purported bar of the Plaintiff from the premises of the 2nd Defendant together with refusal to pay Plaintiff's claims salaries and benefits since July, 1991 is an unlawful interference with Plaintiffs' membership and contractual rights with the 2nd Defendant and same amounts to a breach of contract.
-
5
An order directing the 1st Defendant with the National Council of the 2nd Defendant to appoint the Plaintiff Commandant-General of the 2nd Defendant, and pay him his outstanding claim of N24,044.20 as special damages together with all his salaries and benefits from the 1st of July, 1991 till judgment.
-
6
N100,000 general damages against the Defendants for unlawful interference with the Plaintiff's aforesaid membership/contractual rights." After evaluating the evidence before him and considering the addresses of the learned Counsel, the learned trial Judge granted the above reliefs and gave judgment to the Respondent.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Defendant appealed t; the Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal contained eleven grounds of appeal and was filed on 21/9/99. On 1/3/01 the Respondent filed a motion on notice seeking an order dismissing the appeal.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Defendant appealed t; the Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal contained eleven grounds of appeal and was filed on 21/9/99. On 1/3/01 the Respondent filed a motion on notice seeking an order dismissing the appeal.
On 5/6/01, the Court of Appeal took the motion and dismissed the appeal for want of diligent prosecution.
The Appellants dissatisfied, again further appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of dismissal made by the Court of Appeal.
