Daniel Osaren Omoregie V. Gabriel A. Emovon (1982)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
G. IRIKEFE, J.S.C.: This application clearly lacks merit. Two grounds are listed for seeking the orders prayed for, namely, sudden illness which inhibited the taking of timely steps for the prosecution of the appeal and inability to perfect counsel’s instructions in time. In view of the Practice Directions recently promulgated by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, I am not persuaded that the reasons stated are sufficient to enable me grant the orders sought.
Accordingly this application fails and it is dismissed. In the result, the appeal itself stands dismissed for want of prosecution with N300 costs in favour of the respondent.
M. 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.The application is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 9 rule 7. N300 costs to the respondent.
K. 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 for want of prosecution with N300.00 costs to respondent.
A. 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 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 agree with the order as to costs made by the learned presiding justice.
M. L. 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 prosecution. N300 costs are awarded to the respondent.
SC.1/1982
