CaseLaw
Onagoruwa V. UBN Ltd (1992) CLR 1(ej) (CA)
Brief
Facts
This application is brought under Order 3 Rule 4(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 as amended and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The applicant’s prayer is for an order extending the time within which to file a notice of appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Ijebu Ode delivered on the 12th April, 1990 and to deem as properly filed and served the notice of appeal already filed and served by the 3rd defendant/applicant, Dr. Olushoga Onagoruwa, on the respondents to the application.
The affidavit in support of this application was deposed to by one Lekan Awogbemila, a Legal Practitioner in the Chambers of Chief G A Onagoruwa & Company, Solicitors to the 3rd defendant/applicant explaining in particular that the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed time was due to a wrong computation of time made by a younger counsel Mr. Abiola Soyemi in the Chambers of the Counsel for the 3rd defendant.
Added to this, it was explained in the affidavit in support that the notice of appeal contained good, arguable and substantial issues of law, the prior determination of which would help the learned trial judge to do substantial justice in this case and that some of the issues raised are of a Constitutional character touching on the right of legal representation in the proceeding.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, Mr. S B Ajayi, opposed the application. He pointed out that the decision sought to be appealed against was given on 12th April 1990 and being of an interlocutory nature, leave to appeal ought to have been obtained either in the lower court or in this court. Asked by the court whether the grounds are grounds of law or not, learned counsel conceded that they are grounds of law. However, he drew attention to Section 25(4) of the court of Appeal Act and went on to say that the proper application to be brought should have been an application for extension of time within which to ask for leave to appeal.
Otunba O Odedina who appears for the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents also opposed the application. He associated himself with the submissions of Mr. Ajayi to the extent that the grounds are not grounds of law. Therefore, according to him, it is necessary for leave of either the lower court of this court to be obtained and such leave not having been obtained, the application is incompetent.
Issues
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason to be entitled to the grant...