Defilement

1. Extension of time within which the Applicant may seek leave to appeal against the Ruling of the Court on No Case submission delivered on 30th day of September, 2015.
2. Leave to appeal against the said Ruling.
3. Extension of time to appeal against the Ruling.
The grounds for making the application as set out in the motion read thus: –
1. Time to file appeal expired after 90 (ninety) days of delivery of Ruling.
2. Counsel did not utilize the 90 (ninety) days window due to inadvertence to the time within which to appeal.
3. Failure to file appeal within time was due to counsels inadvertence.
The motion was entertained on 15/1/2018 with learned counsel for the Applicant, V.I. Ekeh, Esq., in urging the Court to grant the reliefs sought therein, relying on the supporting affidavit and further affidavit filed in the motion.
In the same vein, learned Law Officer, Miss. Uche S. Chukwu (State Counsel) relied on the counter affidavit filed on 22/6/2017 in the motion, in opposing same and urged the Court to dismiss same.
In the supporting affidavit of the motion, the Applicant deposed to the effect that he was on 12/3/2012 arraigned on a charge of defilement in Charge No. HO/14C/2011 and that he pleaded not guilty to the charge. That he made a no case submission on 8/6/2015 after the prosecution closed its case at the trial of the charge; and that in its ruling delivered on 30/9/2015, the lower Court overruled the no case submission and called on him to enter his defence. The Applicant further disclosed in the supporting affidavit, that being dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Court, he instructed his counsel to appeal against same. That shortly after the delivery of the ruling, the staff of the Imo State Judiciary embarked on a strike action on 2/10/2015 and that the strike lasted till 7/12/2015. That his counsel conceived that he (Applicant) had 14 days within which he was to appeal against the ruling of the lower Court as the appeal is an interlocutory appeal; and that the appeal against the ruling in question could not be lodged because of the strike. That the position regarding the time or period within which he is to appeal against the ruling of the lower Court only became clearer to his counsel after he filed a motion similar to the instant one, before the lower Court on 26/1/2016. That his counsel informed him that the time within which he ought to have appealed expired on 27/12/2015 but that he (i.e. counsel) did not file the appeal due to his inadvertence. Having expressly given inadvertence of counsel as the reason for the non-filing of the appeal against the ruling of the lower Court within the prescribed period, the Applicant further disclosed that his counsel had filed a motion similar to the instant one before this Court before now, but that the said motion was withdrawn and duly struck out by this Court on 23/1/2017 upon the objection of the Respondent to the same on the ground that it was an abuse of Court process.
In the counter affidavit of the Respondent it was disclosed to the effect that the instant motion was served on it on 16/6/2017. That the time within which the Applicant should have appealed against the ruling of the lower Court delivered on 30/9/2015 ended on 29/12/2015. It was further disclosed in the counter affidavit to the effect that the Applicant had on 25/1/2016 and 23/8/2016 respectively filed motions similar to the instant one, before the lower Court and this very Court. That while the motion filed on 23/8/2016 before this Court, was withdrawn and duly struck out on 23/1/2017 consequent to the objection that the said motion constituted an abuse of Court process; the one that was filed before the lower Court on 25/1/2016, is still pending before that Court till date. There is also deposition in the counter affidavit to the effect that the Applicant who had been on bail since after his plea was taken, is improperly using the issuance of judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of the victims family as well as the Respondent. That the Applicant deliberately went to sleep for almost six months after the similar motion he made to this Court was struck out on 23/1/2017 and has also purposely allowed the similar motion he filed before the lower Court on 25/1/2016, to continue to pend before the said lower Court. The Respondent concluded the counter affidavit by deposing that it would be grossly prejudiced by the grant of the instant motion.
The Applicant filed a further affidavit in which he disclosed to the effect that the motion similar to the instant one, that was filed before the lower Court was struck out by the said Court on 6/4/2017 to the knowledge of the prosecuting counsel who did not oppose the withdrawal and a certified copy of the proceedings for the said day was annexed to the further affidavit as Exhibit A. The Applicant further deposed to the effect that after his first motion filed in this Court was struck out on 23/1/2017, he could not bring another motion before the instant one until he had taken steps to

…………………….B…………………….