Abdullahi Abubakar Gumel V. Waheed Oladapo Makanjuola & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TINUADE AKOMOLAFE-WILSON, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling)

\The appellant/applicant by a motion on notice dated and filed on 13th August, 2012, prayed for the following orders:

“1. An order of Court granting leave to the appellant/applicant to amend his notice and grounds of appeal dated the 25th day of April, 2012 and filed on the 26th day of April, 2012 as contained in the schedule of amendment attach hereto and marked Exhibit ‘B”.

2. An order of Court granting leave to the appellant/applicant to file and argue additional grounds of appeal not contained in the Notice of Appeal filed on the 26th day of April, 2012 by the addition of new grounds eleven, twelve and thirteen as contained in the proposed amended notice of appeal. Copy is attached to the affidavit in support of the motion on notice and marked Exhibit “C”.
3. An Order of Court granting leave to the appellant/applicant to raise and argue fresh points/issues for the first time in the Court of Appeal same having been pleaded at the trial Court but not canvassed/argued and others were not raised nor argued at the trial Court.
4. An order of Court

1

extending the time within which the appellant/applicant may file his brief of argument in this appeal time permitted by the rules of this Honorable Court having lapsed.

5. An order of this honourable Court deeming the Amended Notice of Appeal as having been duly filed and served.
6. An order of this honourable Court deeming the brief of argument of the appellant in this appeal as having been duly filed and served.

AND for such further or other orders as this honourable Court may deem fit make in the circumstances.”

The grounds for the reliefs set on the motion paper are thus:

“a) In the course of research and preparation of the appellant’s brief of argument, it was discovered that grounds of appeal filed did not clearly bring out the entire issues involved in the appeal for proper determination hence the need to amend the grounds of appeal.

b) It was further realized that certain mandatory provisions of the Land Use Act and Land Registration Act were not complied with which affected the competence of the 1st respondent to institute the legal action and the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain and determine the action.

<br< p=””

</br<

2

c) Due to oversight on the part of counsel that handled the case for the appellant and the trial Court to avert his mind to the provisions of the laws, the points of law were left undecided.

d) The point sought to be raised and argued are substantial points of law and were not raised and argued at the trial Court and it is necessary to raise and argue the points to prevent obvious miscarriage of justice.