Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

MOTION NOT ARGUED IS DEEMED ABANDONED

Dictum

It is a notorious and ancient principle of law that a motion, be it on notice or ex parte, is not self-executory. It has to be argued by its proponent/owner for a Court to be properly equipped with the requisite jurisdiction to rule, one way or the other, on it. Curiously, however, the first respondent, in its infinite wisdom, did not argue the application in its amended brief of argument. In glaring absence of not being argued, the application suffers from barrenness and de jure, abandoned. In that unenviable and pitiable state of abandonment, its fortune is obvious. It carries the liability of being struck out. Consequently, in due obeisance to the dictate of the law, I strike out the application on account of abandonment.

— O.F. Ogbuinya JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Cap. Ltd. & Ors. (September 20 2021, ca/l/1093/2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

AN APPLICANT IS BOUND BY HIS PRAYERS IN HIS MOTION

It is an elementary but fundamental principle of our adversary system that an applicant is bound by the prayers in his motion. See A.C.B. Ltd. v. A.G. Northern Nigeria (1969) N.M.L.R. 231. — Karibi-Whyte JSC. Okoya & Ors. V. S. Santilli & Ors. ( SC.206/1989, 23 MAR 1990)

Was this dictum helpful?

SUBMISSION NOT BASED ON GROUND OF MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT WILL BE AT LARGE

The appellant’s learned senior counsel argued the application on the basis of the issues formulated by him and seemed to have abandoned the supporting affidavit. This is clearly not correct. Parties to a motion are bound to restrict their submissions within the confines of the grounds upon which the application is predicated and the affidavits in support of the application. Where issues formulated by parties do not arise from the grounds and the affidavit in support, any argument thereon will certainly be at large and is of no effect.

— P.A. Galinje JSC. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Anor. (SC.535/2013(R), 23 June 2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

ELEMENTS TO SHOW BEFORE EXTENSION FOR GRANT OF TIME WILL BE ALLOWED

Let me add, before I log out, that a party asking for enlargement of time within which to appeal not only does he have the burden of proving two facts before he gets the indulgence, that is: good and substantial reasons for the delay, and a ground(s) of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard; he shares additional burden with the Court to ensure that the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed: RATNAM v. CUMARASAMY (1964) 3 ALL E.R. 933 at 935; BANK OF BARODA v. MERCANTLE BANK (1987) 6 S.0 341 at 350. Even where the application is not opposed, the Court still bears the onerous responsibility of satisfying itself that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the grant of the indulgence because the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed: NWAWUBA v. ENEMUO (1988) 5 S.C.N.J. 154.

— Ejembi Eko, JSC. County Dev. Co. v Hon. Min. Env. Housing Urban Dev. (2019) – SC.239/2011

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE SOME GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TO BE CHALLENGED, NOT A PO, BUT A MOTION ON NOTICE

It is now trite law that a motion on notice is filed where a party intends to challenge the incompetence of one or two grounds of appeal in the presence of an existing valid ground(s), see Garba v. Mohammed (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; Kente v. Ishaku (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1587) 96; PDP v. Sheriff (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 219; NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd. (2012) LPELR 7812(SC), (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 148; Cocacola (Nig.) Ltd. v. Akinsanya (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1593) 74; Ezenwaji v. UNN (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 45; Petgas Resources Ltd. v. Mbanefo (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 442; KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Aloma (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 473; Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 14 175; Lawanson v. Okonkwo (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 77. UBN PLC V. Ravih Abdul & Co. Ltd. (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt 1659) 203; FRN v. Atuche (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 338; Lolapo v. COP (2019) 16 NWLR (1699) 476. Opeyemi v. State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 403. I have married the meat of the objection with the inelastic position of the law displayed above. The wisdom behind the comparison is not far-fetched. It is to ascertain if the objection is obedient to the law or desecrates it. An in-depth study of the objector’s objection, discernible from its arguments thereon, clearly, reveals that it mainly chastises the appellant’s grounds 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the notice of appeal. It is obvious that the objector’s objection spared grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 – 19 of the notice of appeal. In other words, those grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 – 19 are viable and valid with the potency to sustain the appeal. In the face of the existential validity of grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 – 19, the objector ought not to have filed a preliminary objection. The proper/appropriate process is an application (motion on notice) challenging the viability of those grounds.

— O.F. Ogbuinya JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Cap. Ltd. & Ors. (September 20 2021, ca/l/1093/2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

MOTION ON NOTICE NOT PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FOR PART COMPLAINT

Nowadays, preliminary objections are filed once a Respondent notices any error in the Appellant’s processes. This is wrong. Where the Respondent complains of the competency of a ground of appeal as in this appeal, and the other grounds are in order, and can sustain the appeal, the Respondent ought to file a motion on Notice to strike out the incompetent grounds and not a preliminary objection.

– A. Aboki, JSC. Sani v. Kogi State (2021) – SC.1179/2019

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT CANNOT GO OUTSIDE THE TERMS/ORDERS OF THE MOTION

The Court of Appeal cannot go outside the terms of the motion however misconceived it is. It is bound by the terms or prayers in the motion filed. (Commissioner for Works Benue State v. Devcon Construction Co. Ltd. (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.83) 407 at 420). Since there was nothing to stay, the Court of Appeal was in error to have made the order prayed for.

— Agbaje JSC. Okoya & Ors. V. S. Santilli & Ors. ( SC.206/1989, 23 MAR 1990)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.