SODEINDE BROS. LTD. V. A.C.B. LTD.

• Pages: 184-187

SODEINDE BROS. LTD. V. A.C.B. LTD.



184

ing executive power vested in the Governor by the Constitution as discussed ear-

lier on in this judgment.

Having regard to the views I had earlier expressed about the invalidity of the

Local Government Law 1976, it follows that I hold that the Commission of Inquiry

5



Law of Kaduna State Cap.25, was available to the Governor of Kaduna State and

that he legally and validly exercised his powers under it to appoint a Commission

of Inquiry into the Kaduna State Local Government Council.

I agree with all the orders made by the learned Chief Justice in his judgment,

including his order as to costs.

10

UWAIS, J.S.C.: I

entirely agree with the judgment delivered by my learned

brother the Chief Justice of Nigeria. I had the opportunity of reading the judgment

in draft and I have nothing to add

.

Accordingly, I will allow the appeal for the reasons given in the said judgment

15



and set aside the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal together with the con-

sequential orders made thereunder. The judgment of the Kaduna State High Court

(per Abdullahi, J.) given in favour of the appellants is hereby restored. I too will

award costs to the appellants in he terms stated in the judgment of my learned

brother the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

20



Appeal allowed.

25



SODEINDE BROS. LTD. V. A.C.B. LTD.

SODEINDE BROTHERS (NIG) LTD.



APPELLANT

V

30 AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD.



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 99/1981

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

35



ESO,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

28th June, 1982

40



Civil Appeal - Re-entry of appeal - Absence of power to re-list appeal after

dismissal for failure to file appellant's brief - Application for further argument

before full court to over-rule Ogbu's case as wrongly decided - No grounds

shown for reversal of courts final judgment of dismissal - Application refused.

45 ISSUE:

1. Whether the Supreme Court has the power to restore an appeal that has been

dismissed for want of prosecution under order 9 rule 7 the Supreme Court

Rules, 1977.

FACTS:

50



The appellant's appeal was dismissed on 10th May, 1982 for want of prosecu-

tion under Order 9 rule 7 because he had failed to file brief within time as required

by Order 9 rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 1977. The appellant then brought

another application mainly to re-enter the already dismissed appeal and attached

an affidavit raising new and substantial issues.