MUTIU OKE EKUN ADEBIYI & ORS V. OBA NURUDEEN ADEKANBI & ORS. (2018)

Background

The appellants in this case, Mutiu Oke Ekun Adebiyi and others, were dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal that ruled against them on 22 February 2013. In response, the appellants filed a notice of appeal on 3 May 2013, initiating a legal challenge to the Court of Appeal's decision.

However, due to procedural difficulties, the appellants were unable to file the required brief of argument in a timely manner. Consequently, on 15 April 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal on the grounds of failure to file this brief. After becoming aware of the dismissal, the appellants took action to restore their appeal, asserting that their failure to comply with procedural rules was due to a pending motion that sought an extension of time for filing the brief.

Issues

The core issues in the appeal involved:

1. Whether the appellants had shown sufficient good reasons justifying the setting aside of the dismissal of their appeal for failure to file the appellants’ brief.
2. The procedural propriety of dismissing an appeal when a related motion for an extension of time was pending.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court ruled that, while it typically does not disturb its own decisions, exceptions arise when a mistake or oversight leads to a judgment that contravenes the principle of justice. The Court emphasized that ensuring justice must take precedence over strict compliance with procedural rules.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

1. At the time of dismissal, an application filed by the appellants seeking an extension to compile and transmit the record of appeal was still pending in the Supreme Court.
2. The failure to file the appellants’ brief was not due to a lack of diligence but was instead linked to the pending motion that had not been addressed.
3. A refusal to consider a pending motion risks breaching the right to a fair hearing, as it compromises the adversarial nature of the legal process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the dismissal of the appellants' appeal was a misstep against the backdrop of an ongoing application which remained unconsidered. On that basis, the Court ordered the dismissal to be set aside and the appeal restored.

Significance

This case is significant for its reaffirmation of the principles underlying fair hearing and access to justice. By allowing the restoration of the appellants' appeal, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity to balance strict procedural adherence with the existential demands of justice, ensuring that a litigant's genuine pursuit for remedy is not thwarted by mere technicality.