Ogwemoh v. F.B.N. Ltd. [2026]

By

Introduction

Can an applicant rescue a stalled appeal after sitting on its rights for two years, or will the court draw a strict line against procedural indolence? This case shows why a two years delay in filing an appeal is fatal and too long a time to sit on a right you say you still want to exercise. This was an application before the Supreme Court seeking extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal, and a further extension of time to file the actual appeal, against a Court of Appeal judgment that had gone against the applicant. The Supreme Court, unanimously, dismissed the application. 

Fact of the Case

The applicant had sued First Bank of Nigeria Limited at the Federal High Court, Lagos, and won — Hon. Justice Hassan entered judgment in her favour on 29th September 2017. The bank, dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed that outcome in the bank's favour on 17th April 2023.

The applicant was unhappy with parts of the Court of Appeal's judgment and wanted to take the fight to the Supreme Court. There was just one problem: by the time she got around to filing, well over a year had passed since the judgment she wanted to challenge, putting her well outside the ordinary window for lodging an appeal.

Summary of the Application

By a motion on notice filed on 10th May 2025, the applicant sought three linked reliefs from the Supreme Court: an order extending the time within which to apply for leave to appeal; an order granting that leave; and an order extending the time within which to actually file the appeal itself.

The application was backed by a fourteen-paragraph affidavit, three exhibits, and a written address. The bank, opposing it, filed a seven-paragraph counter-affidavit and its own written address. The applicant then filed a further affidavit of seventeen paragraphs in response.

Applicant's Case

In her supporting affidavit, the applicant attributed the delay in bringing the application to an earlier motion for leave that she had filed at the Court of Appeal itself — a motion that court failed to hear and determine within the three-month window the law allows. Once that window lapsed without a ruling, she said, she was left needing to approach the Supreme Court directly. She maintained that her proposed grounds of appeal raised arguable, recondite questions of law and fact deserving the Court's attention, and that none of the delay had been intentional or designed to waste judicial time.

Respondent's Case

First Bank, opposing the application, filed its counter-affidavit challenging the sufficiency of the applicant's explanation for the delay. Its position, in substance, was that pointing to an unheard motion at the Court of Appeal explained only part of the story — it did nothing to account for the substantial further delay that followed once that earlier motion stalled, nor did it cure any weakness in the merits of the proposed appeal itself.

Resolution of the Question for Determination

The Supreme Court considered Order 4 Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024, which sets out precisely what an application of this kind must show, and be accompanied by: a certified true copy of the trial court's decision; a certified true copy of the judgment being appealed; copies of other necessary proceedings; grounds of appeal that prima facie show good cause for the appeal to be heard; where leave was refused below, a copy of that refusal; and a written address.

The Court reduced this to two governing conditions that any such application must satisfy: first, an affidavit setting out good and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within time; and second, grounds of appeal that, on their face, show good cause why the appeal should actually be heard. Critically, the Court held that these two conditions are conjunctive, not disjunctive — both must be present together, and if either one is missing, the application fails regardless of how strong the other might be. Granting this kind of extension, the Court stressed, is never routine or automatic; it rests squarely on the judicial and judicious discretion of the Court, exercised on the specific facts before it.

Applying that framework, the Court found the applicant's explanation wanting on both counts. She had accounted for the period during which her earlier motion sat unheard at the Court of Appeal, but she offered no cogent reason at all for the roughly two years that passed after that motion stalled and before she finally approached the Supreme Court. Separately, and independently fatal on its own, a review of her proposed notice of appeal showed that its three grounds did not, on their face, disclose any good cause why the appeal ought to be heard at all. Missing either condition would have been enough to sink the application; missing both left it with nothing to stand on.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court held that the applicant had failed to satisfy either of the two conjunctive conditions governing an application of this nature, and dismissed the motion in its entirety.

Application dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • An application for extension of time to appeal must satisfy two conditions together, not just one: good and substantial reasons covering the entire period of delay, and grounds of appeal that prima facie disclose good cause for the appeal to be heard.
  • Partially explaining a delay isn't enough. Accounting for some of the elapsed time while leaving a real gap unexplained can still sink the application on its own.
  • Extension of time is never automatic or routine — it rests on the court's judicial and judicious discretion, applied strictly to the specific facts of each case.
  • Weak grounds of appeal can defeat an otherwise sympathetic delay story. Even a forgivable delay won't save an application where the proposed grounds don't disclose an arguable case.

In Practice

It is not uncommon to file motion for extension of time either at the trial courts or at appellate courts. The rules of court gives provision for time within which processes are to be filed and how to remedy a situation where processes are not filed within the stipulated time —  and this is where motion for extension of time comes in. While it is filed to rescue a suit or appeal where delay is unavoidable and the reasons for such delay are legitimate, the court will not condole indolence. The Latin maxim ''vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas'' which means ''equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent'' comes to play here. The court will not punish a litigant where the delay is either from the court or his counsel or some unforeseeable circumstances, but, a litigant who sleeps on his right may not have the court on his side when he is finally awakened from slumber. For instance where the cause of action is already statute barred.

I have observed in my years of practice as a legal practitioner that motion for extension of time is sometimes abused. Sometimes, counsels and litigants alikes delay in doing the right thing at the right time and therefore have to rely on motion for extension of time to bring a suit back to life. Take for instance, a litigant who failed to perfect the brief of his solicitor when there is an urgent action to be taken in court. The solicitor may decide not to file the requisite processes or refuse to appear in court — therefore jeopardising the interest of the litigant no matter how beautiful his case may be.

The decision of the supreme court in the instant case is a wake up call to legal practitioners and litigants not to delay in doing what is expedient as delay could be fatal. 

Related Reading

This case pairs naturally with other posts on this blog dealing with the mechanics of getting an appeal off the ground at all:

This post is based on the Supreme Court's ruling and is intended for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tenant at Will or Yearly Tenant? What a Landlord-Tenant Dispute Teaches Us About Proving Oral Agreements: Odutola v. Papersack (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Image
If you've ever relied on a verbal understanding instead of getting it in writing, this case is a cautionary tale. It's a dispute over a warehouse in Lagos that turned entirely on one question: can you prove a tenancy existed just by saying so — or does the law demand more? The Property at the Centre of It All The dispute concerned premises at 44, Eric Moore Road, Iganmu Industrial Estate, Lagos. The first appellant owned the property outright and was also the founder, majority shareholder, and Managing Director of the second appellant, a company that had taken over the unexpired interest in the property from December 1991. According to the appellants, the original tenant of the property was a different company entirely — Thoresen and Co. (Nig.) Ltd — whose tenancy expired in 1980, then got a brief extension to 1982. The respondent, Papersack (Nig.) Ltd, moved into the property during Thoresen's tenancy, initially without the appellants' consent. It later paid rent for a...
Read more

F.R.N. v. Lamido [2026]

By
Image
A note before we begin: the underlying criminal trial in this matter is not concluded. This appeal was about a preliminary ruling only — whether the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case at all, and a procedural question about how the notice of appeal was framed. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision below is a finding of guilt or innocence on the substantive charges, which the trial court has now been directed to continue hearing. The respondent is presumed innocent unless and until that trial concludes with a finding to the contrary. Introduction This was an appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against a Court of Appeal ruling that had discharged the respondent from a money laundering and conspiracy charge, on the basis that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear it. The Supreme Court, unanimously, allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for the trial to continue. Fact of the Case The respondent, together with seven othe...
Read more

You Struck Out the Plaintiff's Claim— But You Still Owe Him a Hearing Notice: Osumuo v. Udeaja [2026] 11 NWLR (Pt. 2052) 443 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Imagine winning a court case worth a piece of prime land in Nnewi — only to have that victory wiped out years later, not because your evidence was weak, but because the man on the other side never got a notice telling him when to show up. That is the entire story of Osumuo v. Udeaja. It is a reminder that in Nigerian courts, a judgment can be procedurally spotless and legally doomed at the same time, if one small, unglamorous document — the hearing notice — never left the registry. The Facts The land at the centre of the fight, known as "Mbana" and sitting along the Onitsha–Owerri Road in Nnewi, Anambra State, had been leased out in 1953 for a term of 99 years. Decades later, the lessee's successor sued the lessor's successor, Andrew Osumuo, claiming a right to continued possession of the land, a declaration that a fresh lump-sum demand for ₦600,000 was improper, and other reliefs. Osumuo, once served, denied the claims and fired back with his own counter-claim: he wa...
Read more