Yabani Makurkachi v. Holoti Maisanbe & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the lead ruling)

By an application filed on 1st February 2024, the applicant prays for the following substantive orders:

1. An order of court extending time within which to seek leave to appeal against the Judgment of the Kebbi State High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction in suit No. KB/HC/61A/2021, delivered on 20th January, 2023.
2. Leave to appeal against the Judgment of the Kebbi State High Court sitting in its appellate Jurisdiction in suit No. KB/HC/61A/2021, delivered on 20th January, 2023.
3. An order of court extending time within which the applicant may appeal against the Judgment of the Kebbi State High Court sitting in its appellate Jurisdiction in suit No. KB/HC/61A/2021, delivered on 20th January, 2023.

The application is predicated on the following grounds:

a. That leave of the lower court is required before the applicant can file his appeal before this honourable court.

b. That the time within which to seek such leave before the lower court has elapsed.

c. That in the circumstance, leave of this honourable court is required before the applicant can competently file his appeal before this honourable court.

The application is supported by an affidavit of ten (10) paragraphs to which the documents relied upon and a written address in support of the application were attached. The respondents filed a counter affidavit of eight (8) paragraphs on 26th April, 2024. The documents relied upon and the written address in opposition to the application were attached to the counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit was deemed as properly filed on 8th May, 2024.

The applicant distilled a sole issue for determination in the application, scilicet:

Whether or not the applicant, has by this affidavit evidence vis-a-vis the facts deposed to therein, is entitled to have the discretion of their lordships been (sic) exercised in his favour

The respondents in their written address equally formulated a sole issue for determination, videlicet:

Whether the applicant has satisfied the twin requirements of the law to appeal to warrant this honourable court exercising its discretion in his favour.

At the hearing of the application, M. K. Abdulkadir, Esq., learned counsel for the applicant and G. A. Shehu, Esq., of counsel for the respondents relied on and adopted the processes they filed and urged the court to uphold their respective contentions in the determination of the application.

The applicant seeks a discretionary remedy for which he wants the discretion of the court exercised in his favour by a grant of the application. The issues crafted by the parties are the same two and tuppence and innate in the formulation is that the grant of the application is premised on the materials furnished by the applicant, since it is the said materials that denote the diacritical circumstances of this matter and would guide the manner of the exercise of discretion, relative to the prayers on the application. Accordingly, the issue as nominated by the applicant will be our cicerone or lodestar in the consideration of the submissions of learned counsel and determination of this application.

Issue for determination