SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION & ORS v. OKEKE

……………………A…………………….

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): On 29th March, 2013 the Appellants herein, who have brought the present application, filed their Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on 29th January, 2013. The Record of Appeal was subsequently compiled and transmitted to the Court and the appeal duly entered on 31st December, 2013 – after Nine Months. Order 7 Rule 4(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985, as amended, enjoins the Registrar of the Court below to compile and transmit record “within a period of not more than six months from the date of filing the notice of appeal.”
Order 6 Rule 5(1) (a) of the said Supreme Court Rules (hereinafter called “the Rules of this Court”) provides
The Appellant shall within ten weeks of the receipt of the Record of Appeal – file in the Court and serve on the Respondent a written brief being a succinct statement of his argument in the appeal.
The Appellants/Applicants had up to 15th March, 2014 10 weeks after 31st December, 2013, to file their brief of argument. They never did so. They also did not apply for extension of time within which to file their brief of argument.
On 18th February, 2015 (a period of 13 months and 2 weeks i.e. after 54 weeks), this Court sitting in Chambers, suo motu dismissed the appeal No. SC.763/2013 for want of prosecution under Order 6 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of this Court, that provides
Where the Appellant has failed to file a brief within the period prescribed by this Order and there is no application for extension of time within while to file the brief, the Court may, subject to the proviso to Rule 9 of this Order, proceed to dismiss the appeal in Chambers without hearing argument.

The legislative intent for Order 6 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of this Court is the empowerment of the Court to take the initiative to clear its own docket of dormant or abandoned appeals in which the parties have lost interest. It is to decongest the cause list of such dead woods or moribund appeals. Order 6 Rule 3(2) empowers this Court to act suo motu to clear out abandoned appeals in order to decongest the Court.
On 10th May, 2017, about 27 months after their appeal was dismissed on 18th February, 2015 the Appellants brought the instant application through their counsel Fidelis Oditah, QC, SAN, seeking the following reliefs –
1. AN ORDER setting aside the decision of this Court given in Chambers on 18 February, 2015 in default of the Appellants’ Brief.
2. AN ORDER restoring this appeal to the Court’s list for determination on the merits.
3. AN ORDER enlarging time within which the Appellants/Applicants may file and serve the Appellants’ Brief of Argument for hearing on the merits.
4. AN ORDER deeming the already filed and served Brief of Argument as properly filed and served.
5. AN ORDER permitting the departure from compliance with the Rules of this Court and accelerating the hearing of the appeal.
ALTERNATIVELY,
1. AN ORDER extending the time within which the Appellants/Applicants may seek leave of this Honourable Court to appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division in Appeal No. CA/I/13/2009 delivered on 29th January, 2013 by Amina Augie, JCA, lbrahim Musa Saulawa, JCA and S.D. Bage, JCA.
2. AN ORDER granting leave to the Appellants/Applicants to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division in Appeal No. CA/I/13/2009 delivered on 29th January, 2013 by Amina Augie, JCA, lbrahim Musa Saulawa, JCA and S. D. Bage, JCA.
3. AN ORDER for the extension of the time within which the Appellants/Applicants may appeal the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division in Appeal No. CA/L/I3/2009 delivered on 29th January, 2013 by Amina Augie, JCA, lbrahim Musa Saulawa, JCA and S. D. Bage, JCA.
The application was upon the following grounds:
a. On 18 February, 2015, this Court struck out this appeal on the grounds that the Appellants had failed to file their Brief of Argument as required by this Court Rules.
b. As the apex Court, this Court has inherent powers to set aside its own default judgment given in default of Appellants’ Brief and hear the Appeal on the merits.
c. Courts are reluctant to visit the mistake of Counsel on the client especially in matters which concern the protection of the public interests such as are raised in this appeal.
d. This appeal raises very important question of Constitutional and regulatory law, including the following: first, the extent to which the First Appellant can exercise its