Hrh Eze N. K. Agha & Anor V. The Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs & Ors (2016) LLJR-CA

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

By their Motion on Notice dated the 26th day of May, 2014 and filed in the Registry of this Court on 28th day of May, 2014, the Appellants Applicants HRH EZE N. K. AGHA and ISUIKWUATO LOCAL GOVERNMENT pray this Court for the following Orders:-

(a) An Order granting the applicants leave to apply out of time for the restoration of Appeal Number CA/PH/378/2008 which was erroneously dismissed for want of diligent prosecution on 17th March, 2010.

(b) An Order extending the time within which the appellants/applicants shall apply (out of time) for the restoration of Appeal Number CA/PH/378/2008 which was erroneously dismissed for want of diligent prosecution on 17th March, 2010).

(c) An Order restoring Appeal Number CA/PH/378/2008 which was erroneously dismissed for want of diligent prosecution on 17th March, 2010.

(d) An Order granting leave to the Applicants to amend the Notice of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/378/2008 by re-numbering the 1st and 2nd sets of Respondents as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents, respectively.

(e) An Order amending the numbering of the 1st and 2nd sets of Respondents on the face of the Notice of Appeal to read 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents, respectively.

AND for such further or other Orders as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

The application is predicated on the following grounds namely:

(i) The appeal was dismissed on 17/3/2010 and the appellants/applicants immediately filed an application to restore the appeal.

(ii) The application could not be heard by the Court until 7/5/2013 when the Court struck it out because the first set of respondents was stated to be also appellants/applicants.

(iii) The applicants filed another motion for the restoration of the appeal but the same was struck out on 27/1/2014 because it was filed out of time as ten days had elapsed before the motion was filed.

(iv) The leave of the Court is necessary for the appeal to be restored. The issue before the Court on 17/3/2010 ought to have been failure to compile and transmit complete Record of Appeal and not failure to the Appellants Brief.

(vi) The 2nd set of Respondents who were aware that the issue at that time was the transmission of complete Record of appeal filed a Motion to dismiss the Appeal for failure to the Appellants Brief which was fixed for 17/3/2010 but filed in 2009.