United Bank For Africa Plc V. Btl Industries Ltd (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

The appellant, United Bank for Africa Plc. by its motion filed on 23/2/ 05 prayed for the following:

“(1) An order granting leave to the appellant to raise fresh issues of law as to: (a) frustration; (b) public policy consideration; (c) misjoinder of causes; (d) illegality and supervening legislation; (e) jurisdiction; (f) unjust enrichment; and (g) burden of proof.

(2) An order granting the appellant leave to amend the notice of appeal dated 20/10/03 by substituting thereof the notice of appeal attached as exhibit U01 to the affidavit in support of this motion.

(3) An order enlarging the time within which to apply for leave to file grounds other than the grounds of law in this appeal.

(4) An order granting leave to the appellant to file grounds other than grounds of law in this appeal.

(5) An order granting leave to the appellant to file grounds of appeal challenging concerning concurrent finding of fact.

(6) An order, (sought ex abundante cautela), granting the appellant extension of time within which to appeal.

(7) An order granting the appellant leave to adduce additional evidence for the court to receive on appeal.

(8) An order granting the appellant leave to file an amended brief of argument, with liberty for the respondent to file a fresh brief, or alternatively;

(9) An order granting leave to the appellant to file its reply brief out of time; or further alternatively.

(10) An order deeming the reply brief filed on the date hereof as duly and properly filed.”

The appellant/applicant filed in support of the application an affidavit to which were annexed several documentary exhibits. A further affidavit was filed on 21/2/05. It later filed a brief in support of the application on 23/2/05 and a reply brief on 23/2/05. Respondent filed its brief against the application on 10/3/05 .

This court on 14/03/05 heard arguments for and against the grant of the prayers sought on the application. The respondent’s counsel in his brief indicated that he was only opposing prayers 5 and 7 out of the ten prayers sought by the applicant.