Mohammed Musa Bello & Ors v. Praco Nigeria Limited & Ors (2025) LLJR-CA

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OKON EFRETI ABANG, JCA (Delivering the lead ruling)

In a Motion on Notice filed on 31/5/2024 brought pursuant to sections 241 and 242 of 1999 Constitution, as amended, section 24(2)(a) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Act as amended, Order 6 Rules 1(a), 7(a – c) and 9(1) & (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this court, the Applicant prayed this court for the following reliefs:

1. An order extending the time within which the applicants may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the composite judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Division, Coram: Binta Mohammed J. delivered on 6/3/2023 in motion No. M/117/2023 and suit No. FCT/CV/812/2022 between Praco (Nig.) Ltd & Another v. Mohammed Musa Bello, Minister Federal Capital Territory and 7 Others per the attached proposed notice of appeal annexed as exhibit FCT5 in the affidavit in support of the application.

The grounds upon which this application is predicated are as follows:

a. The time within which the applicants can seek leave to appeal as contained in grounds 1 to 8 of the proposed joint notice of appeal has elapsed.

b. That the applicants have demonstrated in the supporting affidavit cogent reasons why the court should grant them extension of time to appeal against the judgments of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory above described.

c. The applicants have disclosed in the proposed notice of appeal good and substantial grounds as additional reason as to why this application should be granted.

d. The applicants truly desire that the appeal be heard and determined on its merit.

The application is supported by 6 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Frances Anuwe a legal practitioner in the employment of Messrs J. B. Daudu & Co. applicants counsel.

That sometime in the year 2022, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed a suit at the trial court seeking orders of mandamus compelling the applicants to release some land documents belonging to the 2nd respondent in custody of the applicants. The 2nd respondent sought an order of court to update, renew, validate and undertake all such steps as would place the 1st & 2nd respondents documents in a status of land title documents/instruments.

The applicants reacted by filing its counter-affidavit that was accompanied with a notice of preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction in entertaining the suit.

On 6/3/2023, the trial court delivered judgment in favour of the respondents.

The said judgment in suit No. FCT/HC/M2318/2022 is herein attached and marked exhibit FCT1.

That the applicants are not aware of the reason for the distinction in suit No. FCT/HC/M/2318/2022 and the respondent’s originating motion bearing suit No. FCT/CV/812/2022.

A copy of the originating motion is annexed herewith and marked exhibit FCT2.