Background
This appeal originates from a ruling by Essang, J. of the Akwa Ibom State High Court, who dismissed the suit of F.B.N. Plc. for want of diligent prosecution due to the absence of the plaintiff and their counsel on 28-10-98. The plaintiff had claimed N309,650.58k, plus interest, against the defendants, Asubop & Co. (Nig.) Ltd. After attempts at settling the matter out of court failed, the case was met with a series of adjournments initiated by the appellant. Once dismissed, F.B.N. Plc. lodged an application to have the judgment set aside and the case reinstated, which was subsequently denied by the trial judge, leading to this appeal.
Issues
The core issues for consideration include:
- Whether the trial judge possessed the jurisdiction to set aside the prior dismissal.
- Whether the failure to consider the appellant's affidavit evidence amounted to a breach of fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that:
- The trial judge lacked jurisdiction to set aside his predecessor's dismissal order.
- The appeal process was the appropriate course for the appellant rather than seeking reinstatement in a different court.
- An application to set aside a judgment based on absence must meet specific legal requirements within established timeframes.
Court Findings
The appellate court found that:
- F.B.N. Plc. failed to file its application within the stipulated time frame of six days following the dismissal as required by Order 37, rule 9 of the Akwa Ibom State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1989.
- Essang, J. correctly determined that he could not entertain the application due to lack of jurisdiction, as it was intended to counter a ruling made by another judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
- The appellant's claims of being uninformed about court dates did not sufficiently excuse their absence nor demonstrate that their application warranted sympathetic consideration.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed F.B.N. Plc.'s appeal, affirming the lower court's decision. The appellant's failure to act within the provided legal timeframes, coupled with procedural missteps, significantly undermined their case.
Significance
This case highlights critical procedural rules regarding the dismissal of actions for want of prosecution, particularly the necessity for timely applications under relevant court rules. It underscores the importance of diligent prosecution and adherence to procedural timelines in civil litigation, especially in jurisdictions where local procedural laws govern the terms for reinstating dismissed actions.