Alhaji Lasisi Salisu & Anor V. Alhaji Abbas Mobolaji & Anor (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

This application was brought by the appellants on September, 2013 pursuant to Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, S15 LFN 2004, Order 2 Rule 28 and Order 8 Rules 2(5), 4, 11, 12 and 31(1) of the Supreme Court Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for the following reliefs:

1. An Order granting leave to the defendants/appellants to raise for the first time at the Supreme Court and be heard in this appeal, the point of law stated in grounds 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the proposed Amended Notice of Appeal attached to the affidavit hereto marked Exhibit “I” as to lack of jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the plaintiffs/respondents’ case or incompetence of their pleadings;
2. An order allowing the defendants/appellants to further amend the Amended Notice of Appeal herein in terms of the document attached to the affidavit hereto marked Exhibit “I”;
3. An order deeming the Further Amended Notice of Appeal filed herewith as having been properly filed;
4. An order granting leave to the appellants to amend their Appellants’ brief of Argument herein in terms of Exhibit “J” attached to the affidavit hereto;
5. An order deeming the amended Appellants, Brief of Argument filed herewith as having been property filed;
6. An order extending the time within which the defendants/appellants may file their Appellants, Reply Brief herein;
7. An order deeming the appellants’ Reply Brief filed herewith as having been properly filed.

And for such further or other orders as the court may deem fit in the circumstance.

The grounds upon which this application is premised, in addition to the grounds contained in the supporting affidavit to this application are as follows:

GROUNDS

(a) The fatality of the deficiency of the plaintiffs/respondents statement of claim has just come to appellants’ counsel’s notice upon reading the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Stowe & Anor Vs. Benstowe & Anor reported in (2012) 9 NWLR (pt 1306) 450 at 474.

(b) The said decision (Stowe vs. Benstowe, (supra) was not available to the appellants in the two Lower Courts.

(c) The point of law may be decisive of the appeal.

(d) The point of law touches on the lower court’s jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs/respondents’ case as framed.

(e) The appellants do not require any fresh evidence to argue the point of law and will rely on the Record of appeal already before the court.

(f) The amendments sought will enable all matters in dispute between the parties to be determined in this case and avoid multiplicity of proceedings;

(g) The delay in raising the point of law and in filing the Appellants’ reply brief was due to negligence or inadvertence of counsel.

In support of the application was an affidavit of six (6) main paragraphs deposed to by one Olanrewaju Lawal, a Litigation Assistant in the chambers of the appellants’ counsel – Mr. B.A.M. Fashanu, SAN. Attached to the said affidavit are thirteen (13) various documents marked Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, E1, F, F1, G, H, I, J and K.

The Respondents in opposing the application filed a counter affidavit of seven (7) paragraphs to which Chief Saturday Balogun Ilosu deposed. He is said to be a principal member of the Eleso Chieftaincy family of Ijanikin. Attached to the said counter affidavit are three (3) documents marked as Exhibits A, B and C respectively.