ELEGUSHI V. ROMAY SALES (NIG.) LTD. (2025)

Background

The applicants sought three principal procedural orders from the Supreme Court: extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal, and extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The proposed appeal was directed against a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, delivered on 2 January 2024, which had affirmed concurrent findings of fact by the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja, in Suit No. LD/569/2012. The applicants also sought a stay of execution or enforcement, but that fourth prayer was struck out.

The application was filed on 3 June 2025. The applicants relied on an affidavit, exhibits, written submissions, a further affidavit and a reply on points of law. Romay Sales Nigeria Limited opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had not shown satisfactory reasons for the delay, substantial grounds of appeal, or exceptional circumstances warranting interference with concurrent findings.

Issues

The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the conditions precedent for extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal, and extension of time to appeal. This required the Court to consider whether they had provided good and substantial reasons for the delay and whether their proposed grounds of appeal prima facie showed good cause for the appeal to be heard. Because the lower courts had made concurrent findings of fact, the Court also considered whether exceptional circumstances existed under Order 4 rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

An application for extension of time to appeal is discretionary and is not granted as of right. The applicant must establish, by affidavit, both good and satisfactory reasons for the delay and good, substantial and arguable grounds of appeal showing prima facie good cause why the appeal should be heard. These requirements must co-exist; failure to satisfy either is fatal to the application.

Where the Court of Appeal has affirmed the findings of fact of the trial court, an application for leave to appeal under section 233(3) of the Constitution can succeed only in exceptional circumstances, pursuant to Order 4 rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024. Exceptional circumstances may include a misapplication of evidence, a material variance between the evidence and the findings, patently perverse findings, or a fundamental error of law. The expression “substantial” denotes something tangible, real, firm, strong or fundamental, while “exceptional” means much greater than usual.

Court Findings

The Court found that the applicants had not stated an explicable, tenable, good and substantial reason for failing to appeal within time. Their account concerning an earlier motion filed at the Court of Appeal was unsupported by the motion or relevant proceedings. The Court also considered the applicants’ conduct, including their failure to clarify the status of an appeal and their non-compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, to demonstrate indolence rather than a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The proposed grounds of appeal did not disclose a substantial mistake of law or fact, a prima facie error warranting consideration, or any exceptional circumstance. The applicants did not establish that the concurrent findings of the trial court and Court of Appeal were perverse. The Court further held that merely alleging that the lower courts departed from principles governing the alienation of family land did not satisfy the applicable threshold.

The Court emphasized that leave should not be granted to permit insubstantial appeals that merely invite repetition of settled principles, particularly where the merits had already been determined consistently by the two lower courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the motion filed on 3 June 2025. The applicants were refused extension of time to seek leave, leave to appeal, and extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The stay-related prayer had already been struck out. No further order as to costs was made.

Significance

The ruling reinforces the strict Nigerian appellate threshold applicable to late applications for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact. It confirms that the explanation for delay and the quality of the proposed grounds are cumulative requirements, and that the Supreme Court will not use its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain appeals lacking substantial grounds or exceptional circumstances.