Judgment
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By the Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 19th April, 2006, before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, (Court below), the Appellant prayed for:- “a) An order granting the Appellant herein extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos per Honourable Justice E. O.
Sanyaolu dated 7/4/2003 Suit No: FHC/L/CS/293/98. b) An order granting leave to the Applicant herein to appeal against the said ruling dated 7/4/03 in the said suits and for leave to appeal on grounds of facts and/or mixed law and facts. c) An order for extension of time within which to appeal against the ruling aforesaid and for such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. Dated this 19th day of April, 2006.”
The motion was supported by a 19 paragraphs Affidavit deposed to by a Legal Practitioner in the Chamber or Appellant’s Counsel to which were annexed, copies of documents marked as exhibits.
On the 20th November, 2009, the motion was moved by learned Counsel for the Appellant; Mr. Ferdinand Egede, who also deposed to the Affidavit in support thereof and urged the Court below to grant same while Mrs. Hope Nwambe, counsel for the Respondent did not file a Court-Affidavit in reaction to the affidavit in support of the motion but only opposed the request for an adjournment.
The Court below rendered the following ruling, thereafter:- “The application dated 19th April, 2006 and filed on the same day seeks the trinity prayers for extension of time, for leave to appeal and extension of time within which to appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos State delivered on the 7th April, 2003 in suit no. FHC/L/SC/293/98. Same is supported by an affidavit of nineteen paragraphs deposed to by Egede Fedinard, the learned counsel for the applicant who relied on all.
For the application of this nature to earn the favour of the Court, the applicant must satisfy two conditions as restated in Order 3 Rule 4(2) of the Rule of this Court. In other words, it is incumbent on the applicant to satisfactorily explain good and substantial reasons why he failed to appeal within time.
