Extension of Time

Now, the effect of denial of extension of time constitutes a big punishment for a potential appellant as he would have lost the chance of having his appeal heard on the merit. To deny a party an opportunity of having his appeal heard, the appellate Court must have a very compelling reasons to do so. For such a denial will be as good as dismissing an appeal. It is always more just for an appellate Court to exercise its discretion towards hearing the appeal in order to resolve the dispute between the parties once and for all. It is for the reasons I have set out in this ruling that I find merit in this application which I accordingly grant as prayed.

STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. LONGTERM GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED &

In this Court, every application for extension of time to appeal shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reason for failure to appeal within the prescribed period and by grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. See Order 2 Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2014.
It follows therefore that the applicant must:-
1) Give good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period.
2) Grounds of appeal must prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
The two conditions must be satisfied conjunctively.
See Okere v. Nkem (1992) 4 NWLR (pt. 234) 182; Ibodo & Ors v. Enarofia & Ors 1980 NSCC 195.

STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. LONGTERM GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED &

The applicant is by law permitted to ask for alternative relief by seeking for extension of time to appeal. In Xtoudos Services Nigeria Ltd & Anor v. Tarsei (W.A) Ltd & Anor (2006) 16 NWLR (pt. 1003) 533 at 555 paras F-G, which was cited and relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, this Court had this to say:- "It needs to be stressed that there is nothing wrong for a party in an action to include in his pleading two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claim reliefs there under in the alternative. It is proper to do so... But once one of them is granted, the other cannot be granted....Thus where there is a claim in the alternative, the trial Court will first consider whether or not the principal or main claim ought to have succeeded. It is only after the Court may have found that it could not for any reason grant the principal claim that it would only consider the alternative claim. This is settled law." See S.C.E.I v. Odunewo & Anor (1965) 2 ALL NLR 135; Metal Construction (W.A) Ltd. V. Chief Aboderin (1998) 6 SCNJ 161 at 170, (1998) 8 NWLR (pt. 563) 538; Agidigbi v. Agidigbi & Ors (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 454) 303; Merchantile Bank of Nig. Ltd v. Adalma Tanker & Bunkering Services Ltd (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 153) 747; Gaji & Ors v. Paye (2003) 5 SCNJ 20 (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583. I am of the firm view that, since this application is merely asking for alternative, it does not constitute an abuse of the Court's process. I therefore do not think it is necessary to go into the definition of the phrase "abuse of Court process", since this application is not meant to insult any Court process nor is it meant to annoy the applicant's opponents. The application is made to regularize an existing process. I agree with learned appellant's counsel that the case of R-Benkay v. Cadbury Nigeria Plc (Supra) is irrelevant and unhelpful to the respondents.