Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sokoto Judicial Division on Tuesday 15th May in a ruling granted Incorporated Trustees Of Conference Of Secondary School Tutors (Cosst) Also Known As Academic Staff Union Of Secondary School (Asuss) Kebbi State Chapter (8th Defendant) application for an extension of time in a case of NGERIA UNION OF TEACHERS (KEBBI STATE WING) CLAIMANT/APPLICANT and IBRAHIM GARBA & 7 Ors.
This ruling is predicated upon a motion on notice filed by the claimant seeking for extension of time within which to file a reply to the statement of defence and also to deem as properly filed and served the reply which has been separately filed and served.
This suit was initially filed with only seven defendants but by a ruling on 2/2/2018 pursuant to a motion by the claimant dated 28/11/2017, this court joined the 8th defendants as a party to this suit and deemed the amended processes as properly filed and served.
In his written address in support of the motion, learned applicant’s counsel submitted that the grant or refusal of this application is at the discretion of the court. That what is to be considered is whether the applicant has placed cogent and sufficient evidence to warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion in his favour.
In his written submission, respondents’ counsel submitted that an applicant for extension of time must place enough materials before the court to warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion in his favour and that the applicant has not placed such materials before the court.
Counsel submitted that pressure of work and other undisclosed engagement are not sufficient reasons and so the applicant is not entitled to the discretion of this court in its favour
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak expressed thus;
“I have taken a careful look at the affidavit and counter affidavit as well as written submissions of both counsels. It is pertinent, at the risk of repetition, to recast some facts of this application.
This court is of the opinion that if counsel never intended to file a reply but later advised himself to do so, it will not be enough reason to deny him the opportunity.
The granting or refusal of this application is discretion of this court which must be exercised judicially and judiciously, the interest of justice being paramount in the mind of the court.
The attitude of the courts is not to visit the sin of counsel on the litigant. This is however not a license for counsel to go to sleep, wake up from slumber and wave ‘inadvertence of counsel’ at the court as a magic wand.
The respondents have deposed that they will be seriously prejudiced by the granting of this application. However, the affidavit did not say in what way they will be prejudiced at all, neither was there any word to that effect in counsel’s written address. The respondents have accordingly failed to show how they will be prejudiced by the grant of this application. I so hold.
On the whole, and for all the reasons above advanced, this court hereby exercises its discretion in favour of the applicant and grants the application as prayed in the interest of justice.
