LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Delay in Filing Appeal – Holidays and Counsel’s Vacation as Sufficient Explanation
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
I do not think that the reason given by the applicant for the delay in filing the application should be treated so lightly as suggested for the respondents by their learned Counsel. I think it must be noted in this instance that the functional working of the Courts at that period of the year and the commencement of the new year cannot be as normal as during other periods. That apart, it was deposed for the applicant that the chambers of its learned Counsel was closed during the period under consideration, and it opened again on the 4th of January 2001.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Central Bank of Nigeria v. Ahmed & Ors (2001) NLC-92001(SC) at p. 18; Paras B–D.
"I do not think that the reason given by the applicant for the delay in filing the application should be treated so lightly as suggested for the respondents by their learned Counsel. I think it must be noted in this instance that the functional working of the Courts at that period of the year and the commencement of the new year cannot be as normal as during other periods. That apart, it was deposed for the applicant that the chambers of its learned Counsel was closed during the period under consideration, and it opened again on the 4th of January 2001."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Holiday periods and counsel’s vacation closure can constitute sufficient explanation for delay in filing an appeal. The functional working of courts during the end-of-year and new year period is not normal. Counsel’s chambers being closed during that period is a legitimate reason. The court should not treat such reasons lightly. The principle recognises practical realities of legal practice and court operations. Delay caused by genuine holiday periods is excusable. The applicant must still demonstrate good faith and reasonable diligence within the constraints of the period. The court considers the totality of circumstances. The explanation need not be perfect—only satisfactory. The discretion is exercised judicially, not technically.
