EKPO V. STATE

• Pages: 146-155

EKPO V. STATE



146

BELLO, J.S.C.:

The only reason given for the delay in filing the brief was that the

appellant was ill and did not perfect instruction to counsel. Since the issuance of

Practice Directions, this Court will not extend the time within which to file brief

simply for non-payment of counsel's fees.

5





The application is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed for want of pros-

ecution under Order 9 rule 7. N300 Costs to the respondent.

ESO, J.S.C.: I

agree. Application for extension of time dismissed. It is without

merit. And as there is no brief filed in the appeal, the appeal itself is dismissed

10



for want of prosecution with N300.0() Costs to respondent.

NNAMANI, J.S.C.:

This is an application for extension of time within which to,

file the brief of argument of the appellant. The affidavit attached to the application

discloses that the appellant was ill and so could not perfect the instructions of his

15



counsel. Having regard to the Practice Directions recently issued by this Court,

and following recent decisions of this Court on similar applications, I am not

persuaded that there are exceptional circumstances to justify granting of the

application. The application is refused. I would also dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution, pursuant to Order 9, Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1977. I

20



agree with the order as to costs made by the learned presiding justice.

UWAIS, J.S.C.: I

agree that there is no substance in the application to extend

time to file the appellant's brief. The reason given for the delay in filing the brief

is not exceptional.



Accordingly the application is dismissed for want of

25



prosecution. N300 costs are awarded to the respondent.

Application refused.

30



EKPO V. STATE

USEN FRIDAY EKPO

35



V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

SOWEMIMO,



J.S.C.

40



IDIGBE,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

18th June, 1982

45

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 77/79

Criminal Law and Procedure - Countofeit notes - Possession of - Uttering of -

Contrary to s.5 Counterfeit Currency (Special Provisions) Act 1974 - Sentence

- Maximum sentence erroneously imposed on accused - Appeal against conviction

only.

50

Evidence - Standard of proof - Failure of prosecution to call specialist evidence

- Effect of - Inadmissible evidence - Confessional statement wrongly admitted

in evidence and relied on - 'conviction justified on other admissible evidence.