Judgment
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement) : This is the ruling in respect of the motion on notice filed by the appellant/applicant on 15/6/2021 praying as follows: 1. “An Order for enlargement of time within which the Appellant/applicant may apply to this Court for an order relisting Appeal No. CA/EK/43/2021 between NAZEEDES BORNER NIGERIA LIMITED VS.
HONGYE AMIP CONCEPT LIMITED which was struck out on 23rd day of January, 2018 by this Honourable Court for failure of the Appellant to comply with the Order of the Court awarding cost to the Respondent on 19th of October 2015. 2. An Order of this Honourable Court relisting Appeal No. CA/EK/81/2014 Between NAZEEDES BORNER NIGERIA LIMITED VS. HONGYE AMIP CONCEPT LIMITED which was struck out on 23rd January, 2018 for failure to comply with the Order of Court made on 19th of October, 2015 directing the Appellant to pay cost to the Respondent. 3.
An Order of this Honourable Court granting leave to the Appellant/applicant to file and argue an additional ground of appeal against the judgment of the lower Court in Suit No: HAD/40/2013 between HONGYE AMIP CONCEPT LIMITED VS NAZEEDES BORNER NIGERIA LIMITED delivered on 11th day of April, 2014 challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the matter. Prayers 4 and 5 of the application as reflected on the motion paper were withdrawn by the applicant and struck out.
The surviving prayers in this application are: (i) Prayer for extension of time to apply for relisting of Appeal No CA/EK/81/2014 (ii) Prayer for relisting of the said appeal (iii) Prayer for leave to file and argue additional ground of appeal against the judgment of the lower Court. The grounds of the application are as follows: 1. The appeal was struck out on the ground that the Appellant failed to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court made on 19th October, 2015 awarding cost in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. 2.
The Court’s orders as to cost were never brought to the attention of the Appellant company by its erstwhile counsel Izuchukwu Okorie, Esq. 3. The Appellant is desirous of diligently prosecuting this appeal and have therefore complied with the order of this Court by paying the costs awarded to the Respondent pursuant to which this appeal was struck out. 4. The appeal raises serious issues of jurisdiction as it relates to the competent of the writ of summons issued and served on the Appellant who resides outside jurisdiction without a leave to issue and serve. 5.
