CHIEF T. O. S. BENSON v. NIGERIAN AGIP OIL CO. LTD. (1982) 5 S.C

CHIEF T. O. S. BENSON v. NIGERIAN AGIP OIL CO. LTD. (1982) 5 S.C.


In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Monday, the 3rd day of May, 1982
Suit No: SC.96/1981

Before Their Lordships


GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO
……. Justice of the Supreme Court
AYO G. IRIKEFE
……. Justice of the Supreme Court
CHUKWUNWEIKE IDIGBE
……. Justice of the Supreme Court
ANDREWS O. OBASEKI
……. Justice of the Supreme Court
KAYODE ESO
……. Justice of the Supreme Court
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI
……. Justice of the Supreme Court
MUHAMMADU L. UWAIS
……. Justice of the Supreme Court


Between

CHIEF T. O. S. BENSON Appellants



And


NIGERIAN AGIP OIL COMPANY LIMITED Respondents



G. S.  Sowemimo, JSC. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On 26th April, this year practice direction was read out in court by the Hon. Chief Justice and was well circularised and published with regards to failure to comply with the rules of the Supreme Court, 1977.
An application was filed by the respondent on 26th April that this appeal be dismissed for failure of the appellant to file his brief within the prescribed rules Order 9 Rule 7. The counsel for the appellant drew our attention that he has filed another application on 28th April, 1982, asking in the alternative for extension of time to file brief or because of some special circumstances be allowed to adduce oral argument, no special circumstances were disclosed and therefore the appellant’s application is refused.

The appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules with N300 costs against the appellant.

A. G. IRIKEFE, JSC.: I am not satisfied that this application has merit. The affidavit certainly does not show it. Two reasons were given for non-compliance with the rules, namely – (a) illness of counsel and (b) dereliction of duty by a junior counsel. There is no affidavit from this counsel, whoever he may be, authenticating the precise instructions with which he was entrusted by his senior in the chambers. Accordingly I would refuse the application.

This appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution with N300 costs.

C. IDIGBE, JSC.: The Chief Justice and this court recently gave Practice Directions on this matter. No substantial reasons have been advanced by the applicant for the relief he seeks and I personally see no exceptional circumstances or reasons for a departure from the Practice Directions recently issued from this court. I would dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution under Order 9 rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1977, still current under the 1980 edition of the said Rules. The appeal is hereby dismissed under the said Rules. I agree with the order for costs proposed by My Lord, Sowemimo, JSC., (i.e. N300.00k – three hundred Naira).

A. O. OBASEKI, JSC.: I agree that there are no good and substantial reasons given for not filing a brief within the time ordered by the Rules. The motion for extension of time I agree that this application to dismiss the appeal having been filed before the application for extension of time to appeal which has just been refused the appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution and it is hereby dismissed with costs fixed at N300.00 (Three hundred Naira).

K. ESO, JSC.: The Chief Justice has on 26th April issued a Practice Direction in matters of this nature. To persuade this court to grant application, there must be substantial reasons shown. Here no such substantial reasons have been given by learned counsel. We are only treated to evidence about the negligence of his law chamber. The appeal is hereby dismissed under Order 9 Rule 7, Supreme Court Rules 1977, with N300.00 costs.

A. NNAMANI, JSC.: There is an application by the appellant for enlargement of time within which to file a brief. An affidavit is attached . I also agree that the reasons adduced by the appellant/applicant for the delay in filing his brief are not substantial. I, therefore, find no exceptional circumstances which would justify the grant of extension of time. With this application out of the way, I would also agree that Chief Akande’s application for the appeal to be dismissed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules be granted. It is significant to observe that the appellant/applicant’s application earlier on referred to was filed on the 27th April, 1982, a day after the respondent’s application was filed. N300 costs to the respondents.

M. L. UWAIS, JSC.: I agree that the respondent’s application be granted as prayed. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with N25.00 costs to the respondent.




Appearances

B. O. Benson, (with him, Chief O. O. Benson) For the Appelants

Chief A. M. O. Akande For the Respondents