Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF TIME, FIRST DAY IS USUALLY EXCLUDED

Dictum

In the instant case the period required for the filing of the appeal is three months. As to how the period of three months could be computed the Supreme Court in Akeredolu vs. Akinremi supra made a clear pronouncement on this issue. The position is that where a statutory period runs from a named date to another or the statute prescribes some of days or weeks or months or years within which some act has to be done, although the computation of the period must in every case depend on the intention of the Law maker as gathered from the statute generally the first day of the period will be excluded from the reckoning, and consequently the last day will be included. In Akeredolu vs. Akinremi supra the apex court at page 794 para A had this to say:- “It would follow that in computing the period for the filing of the appeal in this matter the date – 10th April, 1985 – on which the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment must be excluded. The calculation thus begins on 11th April, 1985 and three months from hence must end at midnight of 10th July, 1985.”

— A.G. Mshelia, JCA. Ize-Iyamu v Alonge & Ors. (2007) – CA/L/184/03

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

MAKING REPEATED ARGUMENTS IS A WASTE OF JUDICIAL TIME

The defendant could easily have either discussed the inadmissibility of these documents in its preliminary issues of law or simply take them up when it was addressing its issue (3). But no, the defendant had to repeat its arguments thus making what should have been a final written address of manageable pages one that ran into pages. The defendant had initially a 41-paged final written address. I had to turn it down and asked counsel to the defendant to re-present his final written address of not more than 35 pages as required under the NICN Rules 2017. What I got as the final written address was a 35-paged final written address of repeated arguments. The mere task of having to read through these repeated arguments (as was the case with the reply on points of law) is just a waste of valuable judicial time that can be put to better use.

— B.B. Kanyip, J. Awogu v TFG Real Estate (2018) – NICN/LA/262/2013

Was this dictum helpful?