OKAFOR V. BENDEL NEWSPAPERS

• Pages: 567-577

OKAFOR V. BENDEL NEWSPAPERS



567

OKAFOR V. BENDEL NEWSPAPERS

5

JOHN OKAFOR



APPELLANT

V.

10 1. BENDEL NEWSPAPERS

CORPORATION



2. MRS. AUGUSTINA OVBUDE



RESPONDENTS

APPEAL No. SC.314/1989.

15

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

AKPATA,



J.S.C.

20



NWOKEDI,



J.S.C.

11th October, 1991.

25

Appeal - Where against discretion of lower court - Whether appellate court can substitute

its discretion - Premature determination of appeal - Effect of

Practice and Procedure - Respondent's notice to vary judgment - Delay in filing of -

Application for extension of time tope - Grant of leave - What materials must be shown

- Order 3 rules 4(1) and 4(2) and rule 14 Court of Appeal rules - Whether applicable.

ISSUES:

1.

How may an application for extension of time to file respondent's notice be

considered?

2.

What distinction is there between order 3 rule 4(1) and order 3 rule 4(2) of the

Court of Appeal rules in relation to application for enlargement of time to file

respondent's notice.

FACTS:

The plaintiff/appellant brought a libel action against the defendants/respon-

dents in the High Court of Anambra State (now Enugu State) holden at Enugu.

The respondents sought to have the action in the High Court dismissed on the

ground that it was at the date it was filed no longer maintainable in that it had

become statute-barred under the Public Officers Protection Law (cap.37) of Bendel

45 State and that it disclosed no cause of action. The trial judge refused to grant the

application. The respondents, therefore, appealed to the Court of Appeal from the

refusal. In the Court of Appeal, the briefs of both parties were filed, but before the

hearing of the appeal, the appellant filed a motion praying the Court for extension

of time to file a respondent's notice to contend that the judgment be affirmed on

50

grounds other than those relied upon by the learned trial judge and to deem the

notice as fully filed. The application was dismissed on the procedural basis that it

was not open to the applicant to file a respondent's notice.

30

35

40