Extension of time to file and serve

• Pages: 632-632

632

argument.” - Per Olagunju J.C.A., in Ibrahim v Balogun Suit No. CA/I/M/90/98;

(1999) 7 N.W.L.R (Pt. 610) 254 at 269.

(69) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AND SERVE

1165. Extension of time for filing appeal.

“If the application is granted, it will amount to an extension of time for filing appeal

from the Federal Court of Appeal. It has been held that when such an application is

made special circumstances should be shown why it should be granted.” - Per

Sowemimo, J.S.C., in Osinupebi v. Saibu Suit No. S.C.3/1982; (1982) 13 N.S.C.C.

214 at 215.

1166. Extension of time to file and serve brief must show exceptional

circumstances.

“In this application the “very exceptional circumstances” required by the latest

Practice Direction of 26th April 1982 have, in my view, not been shown by the

appellant/applicant. Many applications have recently been either struck out or

dismissed for failure to meet the requirement of the said practice direction. For us to

grant this application for extension of time within which to file and serve appellant’s

brief is, in my view, to apply a double standard. I would refuse the application for

extension of time to file and serve brief. For the application to argue additional grounds

of appeal, it must, consequentially, be refused.” - Per Aniagolu, J.S.C., in Musa v.

Hamza Suit No. S.C.2/1982; (1982) 13 N.S.C.C. 219 at 220.

(70) FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN TIME

1167. Failure to appeal within time.

“They failed to give good and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within

time. The failure of moves for amicable settlement is not such reasons (at p. 126).

Per Obaseki, J.S.C., in Moukarim v. Agbaje (1982) 11 S.C. 122 at 127-128. The

appellant is asking us to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Federal Court

of Appeal. I have also gone through the briefs of learned counsel in this matter. The

Federal Court of Appeal, to my mind, has examined this matter properly. They weighed

all the points in favour of the appellant to wit the so-called inadvertence of their

counsel. Having done so, they weighed the conduct of the parties who had shown so

much indifference to the case, behaved so badly to their counsel in Ibadan Mrs.

Folake Solanke to the extent that she decided to withdraw from the case. This was

a situation where the parties neglected to see their counsel for a whole year but

rather conducted far reaching negotiations behind her back. Surely this is different

from the situation which arose in Doherty v. Doherty 1964 1 All N.L.R. 229 or

Bowaje v. Adediwura (1976) 6 S.C. 143.” - Per Eso, J.S.C., in Moukarim v. Agbaje

(1982) 11 S.C. 122 at 127 – 128.

Paras.1164-1167 628