site logo

COUNTY & CITY BRICKS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED V. HON. MIN (2019)

Case Digest

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram

  • Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili JSC
  • Kumai Bayang Akaahs JSC
  • Kudirat Montomori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun JSC
  • Amiru Sanusi JSC
  • Ejembi Eko JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • County & City Bricks Development Company Limited

Respondents:

  • Hon. Minister of Environment Housing & Urban Development
  • Attorney General of the Federation
Suit number: SC.239/2011

Background

This case primarily revolves around a dispute arising from an alleged breach of contract by the respondents, wherein the 1st respondent was found at fault for failing to convey a specified parcel of land to the appellant (County & City Bricks Development Company Limited).

In a ruling by the Federal High Court on June 8, 2009, it was determined that the appellant was entitled to statutory occupancy of a certain land in Ikoyi, Lagos. Following this ruling, the 2nd respondent advised the 1st respondent not to pursue an appeal. Subsequent communications from the respondents indicated their lack of interest in appealing the judgment.

Issues

The court had to resolve several key issues related to the appellant’s appeal against the lower court's decision:

  1. Whether the respondents had effectively waived their right to appeal.
  2. Whether the respondents had abandoned their right to appeal through their prior claims and letters.
  3. Whether the failure of the 1st respondent to appeal within the prescribed time was attributable to a “mistake of counsel” that the law would excuse.
  4. The extent of the court's duty to grant an extension in light of the misconduct associated with the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the rights to appeal were indeed waived. The respondents had intentionally chosen not to appeal, a decision firmly communicated to all relevant parties.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

  1. The deliberate decision of the respondents not to appeal constituted a treated waiver.
  2. The delay in filing for an appeal was not due to any excusable mistake of counsel, as both respondents were capable legal practitioners.
  3. No ground existed to justify exceeding the time limits for appeal set forth in the relevant statutes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's appeal on the grounds of waiver and the wrongful exercise of judicial discretion by the Court of Appeal in permitting the respondents' late application for leave to appeal.

Significance

This ruling holds particular significance as it clarifies the firm nature of rights to appeal and the concept of waiver. It emphasizes that litigants must exercise their rights to appeal within the stipulated time to avoid losing them. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that an error or perceived negligence by counsel cannot always be transferred to the client, especially when the client is a government agency or has professionals competent in law acting on their behalf.