Stanbic Ibtc Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Anor (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.

By its motion dated 20th March, 2015 and filed on the 23rd March, 2015, the Applicant herein seeks for the following reliefs:-

1. AN ORDER enlarging the time within which the Appellant/Applicant may apply for leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Court below in Appeal No. CA/L/194/2009 (Stanbic Ibtc Bank Plc v. Longterm Capital Ltd & Anor) on grounds of facts and/or mixed law and facts as contained in grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Amended Notice of Appeal marked Exhibit Stanbic 1.
2. AN ORDER granting leave to the Appellant/Applicant to appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Court below in Appeal No. CA/L/194/2009 (Stanbic Ibtc Bank Plc v. Longterm Capital Ltd & Anor) on grounds of facts and/or mixed law and facts as contained in grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Amended Notice of Appeal marked Exhibit Stanbic 1.
3. AN ORDER enlarging the time within which the Appellant/Applicant may appeal to this Court on grounds of facts and/or mixed law and facts as contained in grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Amended

1

Notice of Appeal marked Exhibit Stanbic 1.

4. AN ORDER deeming the Amended Notice of Appeal dated 4th December, 2013 but filed on 6th December, 2013 as having been properly filed in so far as it contains the said Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

The grounds upon which this application is predicated are as follows:-

GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION:

1. The grounds of appeal raise issues of high constitutional importance.
2. Section 233(3) of the Constitution prescribes leave to appeal on questions of fact and or mixed law and fact.
3. The time prescribed for seeking leave to appeal on questions of mixed law and fact has expired.
4. This Court has the power to enlarge the time and grant leave to the Applicant to appeal on grounds of mixed Law and fact.

The applicant’s application is supported by a 12 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Oyetola Olunowo, a legal practitioner in the law firm of Ayanlaja, Adesanya & Co. counsel to the Appellant/Applicant. The Respondents challenged this application by filing a fourteen paragraphs counter affidavit dated 13th April, 2015. Parties filed and exchanged written addresses in line with

2

relevant rules of this Court. The applicant’s written address settled by Mr. O. Ayanlaja, SAN learned senior counsel to the applicant is dated 20th March, 2015 and it is attached to the motion. Learned senior counsel formulated a sole issue for determination of this application, and it reads as follows:-

“Whether having regard to the facts of this case the prayers being sought by the applicant ought not to be granted.”

For the Respondent, a written address titled “Respondent’s Reply Brief in opposition to the Appellant’s/Applicant’s Motion on notice dated 20th March, 2015” settled by Chief F. O. Fagbohungbe SAN dated 13th April, 2015 was filed. At page 10 of the written brief, learned senior counsel, formulated two issues for determination of this motion. They read as follows:

1. Having regard to the peculiar circumstance of this case, whether the Applicant’s application constitutes an abuse of Court process
2. Whether the applicant has placed sufficient materials before this Honourable Court to warrant a grant of the orders sought

The Appellant’s/Applicant’s reply brief of argument in respect of the motion herein is dated and filed

3

on the 22nd March, 2017.