BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Nigerian SeedCotton Co. Ltd v. Celtic Commerce & Ind. Ltd
  • 126
  • 2002-10-28
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Nigerian SeedCotton Co. Ltd v. Celtic Commerce & Ind. Ltd

NIGERIAN SEED COTTON CO. LIMITED

V

CELTIC COMMERCE & IND. LIMITED

COURT OF APPEAL

( KADUNA DIVISION )

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, JCA ( Presided )

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JCA

VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

CA/K/296/2000

THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE, 2001

COURT - Adjournment - Discretion of court to grant - How exercised Effect of wrongful refusal to grant - Need for affected party to show that the Judge exercised his discretion wrongly in order to succeed on appeal

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended List Procedure - Purpose of - Right of defendant thereunder - Duty of defendant who has a defence thereunder - Order 22 High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Kaduna State

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended List Procedure - Where extension of time to file notice of intention to defend is granted Whether separate leave need be given for affidavit

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for extension of time -

Whether can be made orally

Issues:

1.            Whether the trial court was wrong in refusing the oral application for extension of time to file the notice of intention to defend, and to deem same duly filed and served.

2.            Whether in view of the circumstances of this case, and particularly the provisions of Order 22 rule 3, and Order 9 rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1987, Kaduna State, the learned trial Judge was wrong in ignoring the notice of intention to defend improperly before the court and proceeding to enter for the plaintiff/respondent upon refusal of the oral application.

Facts:

By a writ of summons filed under the Undefended List Procedure, the plaintiff claimed the sum of N780,000 said to be the purchase price for 50  cartons of Endofalm Chemical which the plaintiff claimed he supplied to the defendant/appellant as per their contract agreement.  On the return date, the counsel to the defendant/appellant appeared in court and prayed the court for an extension of time to file notice of intention to defend filed 2  days before the return date as duly filed and served.  The trial court refused the oral application of counsel and proceeded in the claim by entering judgment for the plaintiff.  Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.