Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

WHEN TO FILE A MOTION ON NOTICE VS PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

In law therefore, it is only when a Respondent is challenging the one or more grounds of appeal but not the entire appeal that resort must be had to motion by notice to strike out the incompetent ground(s) of appeal. However, where it is the competence of the entire appeal that is being challenged the proper method is by means of a notice of preliminary objection as rightly employed by the Respondent in this appeal. The Respondent’s notice of preliminary objection was filed on 23/2/2017, that way beyond the three clear days requirement of the rules of this Court, was served and duly responded to by the Appellant in their Appellants’ Reply brief and therefore, the contention by the Appellants’ counsel in this regards is misconceived and hereby discountenanced. I shall say no more! See Clement Odunukwe v. Dennis Ofomata(2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404 per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. See also Ndigwe v. Nwude (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 626) 314; NEPA v. Ango (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 627; Muhammed v. Military Administrator of Plateau State (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 740) 524; NDIC v. Oranu (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 744) 183.

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. University of Lagos v. Mbaso (2018) – CA/L/775/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

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?

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN RESPONDENT’S BRIEF

These days, preliminary objections are argued in the respondent’s brief thereby obviating the need to file a separate Notice of Preliminary Objection, and to save time. Absence of the required Notice makes the Preliminary objection incompetent. – Rhodes-Vivour JSC. Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011)

Was this dictum helpful?

PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

A preliminary objection is the procedure adopted where a respondent objects to the hearing of an appeal. Its purpose is to terminate the appeal in limine.

– PER M.L. SHUAIBU, J.C.A. Cross & Star v. Government of Cross River State (2022)

Was this dictum helpful?

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WILL BE CONSIDERED FIRST

It is trite law now that where a Notice of Preliminary Objection is filed and moved before a court of law, the court is duty bound to consider the Preliminary Objection before venturing into the main or cross-appeal, as the case may be. See: AGBAREH and ANOR v. MIMRA and ORS, (2008) 1 SCNJ. 409, ONYEKWULUJE v. ANIMASHAUN and ANOR [1996] 3 SCNJ 24; ONYEMEH and ORS. v. EGBUCHULAM and ORS. [1996] 4 SCNJ 235 … The aim/essence of a preliminary objection is to terminate at infancy, or as it were, to nib it at the bud, without dissipating unnecessary energies in considering an unworthy or fruitless matter in a court’s proceedings. It, in other words, forecloses hearing of the matter in order to save time, See: YARO v. AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD. and ORS. [2007] 6 SCNJ 418.

— I.T. Muhammad, JSC. EFET v INEC (SC.207/2009, 28 January 2011)

Was this dictum helpful?

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TAKEN FIRST

By its nature and necessary implications, the preliminary objection has to be taken first.

– Denton West JCA. Salaja v. Salaja (2013)

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?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 176 | UO – 0 | GO – 152 | BO – 24

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.