PRISCILLA OGWEMOH V. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED (2026)

Background

Priscilla Ogwemoh, the applicant, commenced proceedings at the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/699/2013. The Federal High Court, presided over by Hassan J., delivered judgment on 29 September 2017 in her favour. First Bank of Nigeria Limited, dissatisfied with that decision, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in Appeal No. CA/L/366/2018. On 17 April 2023, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in favour of the bank. Ogwemoh intended to challenge aspects of that judgment before the Supreme Court.

The applicant filed a motion on notice seeking several interrelated orders: extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; extension of time within which to appeal; leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts; and an order deeming her notice of appeal properly filed and served. The application was supported by a 14-paragraph affidavit, three exhibits and a written address. The respondent opposed it with a counter-affidavit and written address, while the applicant filed a further affidavit.

Ogwemoh explained that she had initially filed an application for leave before the Court of Appeal, but that motion was not heard and determined within the prescribed three-month period. She relied on that circumstance as the reason for the delay. However, the Supreme Court noted that the earlier motion did not explain the additional delay of approximately two years before the present application was brought.

Issue

The principal issue was whether the applicant satisfied the conditions precedent for the Supreme Court to exercise its judicial and judicious discretion in her favour by granting extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal, and extension of time to appeal.

Applicable Law

The Supreme Court applied Order 4 rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024. The provision requires every application for extension of time to appeal or to apply for leave to appeal to be served on the affected party and supported by an affidavit setting out good and substantial reasons for the failure to act within the prescribed period. The affidavit must be accompanied by the relevant decisions, necessary proceedings, proposed grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard, any order refusing leave below, and a written address.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that an application of this nature must satisfy two mandatory and cumulative conditions. First, the applicant must provide good and substantial reasons for failing to appeal, or to seek leave to appeal, within the prescribed period. Secondly, the proposed grounds of appeal must prima facie disclose good cause why the intended appeal should be heard. These requirements are conjunctive, not disjunctive. Consequently, failure to satisfy either condition is fatal to the application.

The Court further emphasised that extension of time and leave to appeal are not granted as a matter of routine, sympathy or mere request. They are discretionary remedies, and the discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously on the basis of sufficient and credible materials placed before the Court.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had not supplied a cogent explanation for the two-year delay between the failure of the earlier Court of Appeal motion and the filing of the Supreme Court application. The fact that an earlier motion was not heard within three months did not automatically excuse the subsequent period of inaction. The applicant was required to account satisfactorily for the entire delay, not merely part of it.

The Court also examined the three proposed grounds of appeal. It concluded that, on a cursory or prima facie examination, the grounds did not demonstrate good cause why the proposed appeal should be heard. The assertion that the grounds raised arguable, recondite issues of mixed law and fact was insufficient without grounds that actually disclosed a substantial and legally deserving complaint against the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Because the applicant failed both to establish a satisfactory reason for the delay and to show that the proposed grounds disclosed good cause, the cumulative requirements under Order 4 rule 6(1) were not met.

Decision

In a unanimous ruling delivered by Adumein J.S.C., and concurred in by Saulawa, Agim, Uwa and Idris JJ.S.C., the Supreme Court dismissed the motion on notice for lacking merit. The prayers for extension of time to seek leave, leave to appeal, extension of time to appeal, leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts, and deeming relief were consequently refused.

Significance

The decision reaffirms the strict procedural threshold governing out-of-time appeals before the Supreme Court of Nigeria. An applicant must explain the whole period of delay with substantial reasons and must place before the Court proposed grounds that disclose a genuine and prima facie arguable basis for appellate intervention. The ruling also confirms that a procedural failure or delay in a lower court does not, by itself, entitle a party to an extension of time. Applicants must act promptly once the impediment has ceased and must support their applications with complete, persuasive and rule-compliant materials.