We think there is considerable force in these submissions. We must not, however, be taken as accepting the wider proposition implied in the submissions that in all cases of this kind, a court is bound to grant adjournment. The question of adjournment is a matter in the discretion of the court concerned and must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. For in matters of discretion, no one case can be authority for another and "the court cannot be bound by a previous decision to exercise its discretion in a particular way, because that would be in effect putting an end to the discretion" per Kay L.J.
Odusote V. Odusote:LGC(7/6/1971)A
Finally, the 1st respondent in asking this Court to discountenance the appellant's brief seeks to invoke the discretionary powers of the Court. He has the duty of providing the necessary material on which basis the discretion is to be exercised in his favour. See University of Lagos V. Aigoro (1985) 1 NSCC 88 and Babatunde V. Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transport Agency Ltd & ors (2007) 4 SCNJ 140.
ENEH v. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS LGC(6/7/2018)B
Now, a grant or refusal of this application is purely within the discretionary power of this Court. The law is settled that the discretion of this Court must at all-time be exercised not only judicially but also judiciously on sufficient materials. See Udensi v. Odusote (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 545 at 558 Para (b); Ogbuechi v. Governor of Imo State (1995) 9 NWLR (pt. 417) 53; University of Lagos v. M.I Aigoro (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 1) 143 at 148.
STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. LONGTERM GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED &
Judicial discretion is described as a sacred power that inheres to a judge, and which he should employ judicially and judiciously – Achi V. Ebenighe & Ors (2013) LPELR-21884 (CA). Since two cases are not always the same, this Court does not lay down rules to fetter the exercise of its discretion or that of the lower Courts. Thus, a Court cannot be bound by a previous decision to exercise its discretion in a regimented way, because that would be putting an end to discretion – Odusote V. Odusote (1971) NSCC (Vol. 7) 231, Ajuwa & Anor v. Shell Petroleum Dev. co. Nig, Ltd. (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797 SC.
Continue reading Discretion
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.