STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

DISTINCT MOTION IS NOT ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

In Mobil Production Nigeria Unlimited v. Monokpo (2003) 18 NWLR Part 852 at Page 346 at 430 – 431, it was held among others that:- “Filing of two motions which do not necessarily seek the same or similar reliefs, though in the same case between the same parties would not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

application

A TRIBUNAL HAS A LEGAL DUTY TO DECIDE ALL APPLICATIONS FILED BEFORE IT

A court of law or a tribunal has a legal duty in our adjectival law to hear any court process, including a motion before it. The process may be downright stupid, unmeritorious or even an abuse of court process. The court must hear the Party or parties and rule one way or the other. A...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

AMENDMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ELECTION PETITION AFTER FILING PARTICULARLY WHEN THE 21 DAYS PERIOD HAVE ELAPSED; EXTENSION OF TIME ARE PROHIBITED TOO

In OKE & ANOR v MIMIKO & ORS (2013) LPELR 20645(SC), the Apex Court, per Ogunbiyi, JSC held that: ‘By Paragraph 4(1) and (5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, a composite analysis of an election petition has been spelt out and also a list of materials which must be accompanied. The use...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

APPLICATION WITH NO BACKING OF LAW IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

An application that has no backing of law would ordinarily seem or appear to be an abuse of Court’s process: R-BENKAY (NIG.) LTD. v. CADBURY (NIG.) LTD. (2012) 3 SC. (pt. 3) 169; (2012) 9 NWLR (pt. 1306) 596. — E. Eko, JSC. Francis v. FRN (2020) – SC.810/2014 Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

APPLICATION NOT RECOGNISED BY RULES OF COURT IS NOT A PROPER APPLICATION

In Newswatch v. Ibrahim Attah (2006) 12 NWLR part 993 at 144 at 179 Paragraphs E – G the Supreme Court held among others that:- “…An application not recognized by the Rules of Court cannot be described as a proper application.” Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

WHERE COUNSEL SAYS THERE IS MOTION FOR APPEAL, BUT MOTION NOT BEFORE JUDGE

What the appellant’s counsel said was that they could not proceed because it is impossible for them to go on without the amendment and that there is an appeal and that they wanted the case to be stood down. Where a counsel says that there is a notice of appeal and a motion for stay...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME MUST BE BACKED UP BY GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REASONS

By the provisions of Order 2 Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules both facts in the affidavit, i.e. good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period; and grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard must co-exist for the application to succeed. An...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

No more related dictum to show.