BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Cedar Stationery Products Ltd v. IBWA Ltd
  • 25
  • 2000-11-20
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Cedar Stationery Products Ltd v. IBWA Ltd

CEDAR STATIONERY PRODUCTION LTD.

V

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR WEST AFRICA LTD.

COURT OF APPEAL

( KADUNA DIVISION )

ISA AYO SALAMI,  JCA (Presided and Read the Lead Ruling)

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD,  JCA

MAHMUD MOHAMMED,  JCA

CA/K/26/91

FRIDAY, 12TH MAY, 2000

APPEAL - Enlargement of time to appeal -  Application for - What applicant must show

APPEAL - Application for leave to appeal out of time - Grounds of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of court - Need for court to consider reasons for failure to appeal within time with leniency

APPEAL - Application for leave to raise a fresh point on appeal - What applicant must show

APPEAL - Application for leave to raise fresh point on appeal - Whether to grant at the discretion of the court

COURT - Abuse of court process - Power of court to raise suo motu

COURT - Abuse of court process - Initiation of two concurrent proceedings seeking same reliefs - Whether constitutes an abuse of court process

COURT - Appellate court -  Application for leave to appeal out of time -  Grounds of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of court - Need for court to consider reasons for failure to appeal within time with leniency

COURT - Appellate court - Application for leave to raise fresh point on appeal - Discretion of appellate court to grant

COURT - Party alleging absence from country during a specified period -  How established

EVIDENCE - Statute -  Evidence Act - Affidavit - Contravention of sections 88  and 89 of the Evidence Act - Duty of

IMMIGRATION  LAW - Party alleging absence from country during a specified period - How established

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Abuse of court process - Power  to raise suo motu

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Abuse of court process - Initiation of two concurrent proceedings seeking same reliefs - Whether an abuse of court process

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Affidavit - Contravention of sections 88 and 89 of the Evidence Act - Effect of

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal - Application for enlargement of time to appeal - What applicant must show

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal - Application for leave to appeal out of time - Grounds of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of court -  Need for court to consider reasons for failure to appeal within time with leniency

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for leave to raise fresh point on appeal - Grant at the discretion of the court

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal - Application for leave to raise fresh point on appeal - What applicant must show

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application - Previously determined application - Affidavit in support thereof - Applicant seeking to rely thereon in later application - Affidavit neither exhibited with later application nor incorporated by reference - Whether can be relied upon

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Statute - Ignorance of - Whether constitutes an excuse for contravention

STATUTES - Evidence Act - Affidavit - Contravention of sections 88 and 89  of the Evidence Act - Effect of

STATUTES - Ignorance of - Whether constitutes an excuse

Issue:

Whether the applicant has made out a case for the grant of leave to appeal out of time.

Facts:

This was an application by the respondent in the main appeal to crossappeal against the ruling or judgment of the trial court delivered on the 21st of August, 1990.  The respondent/applicant had made two unsuccessful attempts to cross-appeal as both applications were struck out.  In the present application, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

  1. Leave of the court to raise a fresh issue in this appeal.
  2. Leave of the court for enlargement of time within which the applicant may file and serve a respondent notice of cross appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court Kano, in suit No. FHC/K/M5/85 dated the 21st August, 1990.
  3. An order deeming as duly filed and served the respondent’s notice of cross-appeal exhibited to this application.
  4. An order enlarging the time within which the applicant may file and serve the respondent’s brief or argument in this appeal. The applicant, however, abandoned prayer three.