BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Kraus Thompson Org. v. N.I.P.S.S.
  • 218
  • 2004-08-02
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Kraus Thompson Org. v. N.I.P.S.S.

KRAUS THOMPSON ORGANISATION

V

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR POLICY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES (NIPSS)

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CJN ( Presided )

SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC

ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JSC

UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC

NIKI TOBI, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )

SC. 38/2000

FRIDAY, 7TH MAY, 2004

APPEAL - Dismissal of under Order 6, rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules - Whether can be relisted

APPEAL - Brief of argument - Failure of appellant to file brief of argument - Interpretation of

APPEAL - Brief of argument - Failure of appellant to file within time provided by the rule or time extended by the court - Right of respondent to apply to dismiss the appeal - Order 6, rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 as amended considered

APPEAL - Brief of argument - Time within which must be filed

NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT - Order 6 rule 10, Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 - Need for amendment to be fair and just to parties on appeal

STATUTE - Court of Appeal Rules, 1981, Order 6, rule 10 - Appeal dismissed thereunder - Whether can be relisted

STATUTE - Court of Appeal Rules, Order 6, rule 10 - Need to amend in order to be fair and just to parties on appeal

STATUTE - Interpretation of - Whether proper for the court to sympathise with a party in the interpretation merely because the language of the statute is harsh

STATUTE - Interpretation of - Specific provision of a statute vis-a-vis general provision on an issue - How interpreted

Issues:

1.              Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to relist for hearing on its merit an appeal struck out on the appellant, as respondent’s application for want of diligent prosecution arising from failure to file its brief within the time allowed by the rules.

2.              Whether failure by the appellant to file a counter-affidavit to the respondent’s application to relist the appeal struck out was sufficient to accept as unchallenged the reason for failure to file the brief timeously and to ground the relisting of the appeal struck out.

Facts:

The matter in the High Court had to do with transaction in foreign currency in respect of outstanding payments for the supply of books, journals and/or periodicals. On 13th May, 1996, judgment was given in favour of the appellant by the trial Judge. The respondent filed an application for an order inter alia, to set aside the judgment of 13th May, 1996 on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The application was dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Judge, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. As the respondent failed to file its brief of argument within time, the appellant filed an application to dismiss or strike out the appeal for want of diligent prosecution. The application was struck out. The respondent filed an application to re-list the appeal struck out on the ground that at the time the appeal was struck out, its counsel was in the Court of Appeal Registry filing its brief and an application for extension of time to file same. The Court of Appeal duly re-listed the appeal.

Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.