Chief (Mrs) Christy Okoye & Anor V. Ms. Oluchi Anyanwoko & Anor (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivered the Leading Judgment)

This application, filed on the 4/3/10 prays the Court for the following Reliefs.-

“1. Extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against the Ruling of the FCT High Court coram F.A. Ojo, J. in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/800/2009 delivered on 5.10.09.

2. Leave to appeal against the said Ruling.
3. Extension of time within which to appeal against the said Ruling.

AND for such other orders as the Honourable Court may deem expedient.”

It is supported by an eleven (11) paragraphs initial affidavit to which were annexed copies of the Ruling sought to be appealed against and proposed Notice of Appeal. An affidavit of urgency and two (2) further affidavits were also filed in support of the application.

A counter affidavit sworn to by the 1st Respondent was filed to oppose the facts of the application. All the affidavits in support of the application were deposed to by Charles Jibuaku, a Counsel in the Chambers of the lead Counsel for the Applicants.

Pursuant to an order of the Court, written addresses were filed by the learned Counsel for the parties to the application. The Applicants’ address in support of the application was filed on the 26/4/10 while the address of the 1st Respondent in opposition to the application was filed on 4/5/10. An Applicant’s Reply on points of law was filed on the 18/5/10 to complete the filing of the addresses which were adopted at the hearing of the application on the 14/10/10. Mr. A.B. Anachebe, SAN leading Shereef Mohammed and Charles Jibuaku adopted the Applicants’ addresses and urged us to grant the application as prayed.

Mr. Goody Uche who appeared with Doris Chime and Ebere Ahanonu (Mrs.) for the Respondents adopted the Respondent’s address and urged us to refuse and dismiss the application. Learned Counsel also called on us to strike out the application because no grounds on which it was based were set out on the motion papers as required by Order 7, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007. In a brief response, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants conceded that the grounds for the reliefs sought were not set out on the motion paper but said that the Court is one of justice which will not allow minor non-compliance with its rules to affect the merit of the Applicants’ case. He cited:

BRAITEWATE v. MARITIMA SPAIN-AFRICAN LINES (2001) 5 NWLR (707) 596 at 598 and IKENNA v. BOSAH (1997) 3 NWLR (494) 439 at 454-5 as supporting the position.

In the written address prepared by Mr. Anachebe, SAN in support of the application, he formulated a lone issue for determination by the Court.

It is thus:-

“Whether the Applicants have established a case to enable this Court to exercise in their favour the grant of extension of time for which they may seek leave to appeal against the Ruling of the Lower Court delivered on the 5/10/2010.”

A similar issue was raised by the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent in his address. Because the substance in the two issues formulated by the learned Counsel for the parties is the same, and has been fully argued in their respective briefs of argument, I would review and then consider the submissions as presented in the addresses. However before delving into the submissions by learned Counsel on the issues, I should say that Mr. Uche, learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent is right that by the provisions of order 7, Rule I of Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, every application to the court shall state the Rule under which it is brought and the ground or grounds for the relief/s sought.

The present application as conceded by the learned Senior counsel for the Applicants did not state the ground/s for the reliefs sought. The ground/s for relief/s sought in an application are usually the facts upon which it is based and on which the reliefs are premised. In this application, though the ground/s have not been specifically and separately set out on the face of the motion paper, the facts for which the reliefs sought therein were based, have been set out in the affidavit in support of the application. In the circumstance, the Respondent is fully aware of the reasons or grounds for the reliefs sought and is in no doubt about them.