GOVERNMENT EKPEMUPOLO (A.K.A TOMPOLO) V. THE STATE (2019)

Background

This case involves an appeal by Government Ekpemupolo, popularly known as Tompolo, to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The appellant sought an extension of time to file an appeal concerning the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 19 July 2017 in appeal No. CA/L/240/2016. The Supreme Court was tasked to decide if the applicant had provided sufficient grounds for the extension of time.

Issues

The main issues presented in this appeal included:

1. Whether the appellant had shown substantial reasons warranting an extension of time to appeal.
2. The propriety of granting leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.
3. The implications of the appellant’s failure to appear before the court as a fugitive from justice.
4. Whether it is appropriate for the court to punish a litigant for the inadvertence of their counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that:

1. To obtain an extension of time, two conditions must co-exist: the applicant must present substantial reasons for the delay and show that the appeal has a sound basis.
2. Leave to appeal must be sought in cases where the challenge targets concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
3. A party in contempt of court is precluded from exercising the court’s discretion in their favor.

Court Findings

The court found that:

1. The appellant had failed to demonstrate both substantial reasons for the delay in filing and grounds for the appeal that warranted hearing.
2. Allegations regarding the failure to meet court summons did not substantiate claims of counsel's inadvertence, highlighting that the appellant failed to attend court, undermining his credibility.
3. There was a clear indication that the appellant sought to use the court process while simultaneously disregarding court orders, thus constituting an abuse of process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied the appellant's application to extend time for an appeal, citing lack of substantial reasons and the misuse of court processes. The application was dismissed due to the appellant's disobedience to a lawful court order and failure to proffer sufficient material to benefit from the court's discretion.

Significance

This ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of diligence in following judicial procedures, emphasizing that courts will not entertain appeals from individuals who show contempt for court orders. It reinforces the requirement for applicants to present compelling reasons when seeking extensions of time for appeals and the principle that counsel's mistakes do not exempt clients from accountability.