CIVIL PROCEDURE — Vacation jurisdiction — Urgency — What constitutes urgency for vacation applications
Ratio Decidendi
Per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, in Onwuka v. Ononuju & Ors (2009) NLC-123-246-2002(SC) at pp. 18-19; Paras E-A:
"The narrow issue in this case for this court to resolve is whether the court below rightly interfered with the said discretion of the trial court... The suit is commenced on the 1st March 1990 and took more than eight years for pleadings to be exchanged and 5th October slated for hearing. Given these underlying facts there was nothing about the fate of such an application in the course of the conduct of a suit which had taken this long time to mature for hearing for the lower court to have justifiably dealt with it in the context of Rule 9(2)(c) supra."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that urgency for vacation applications is assessed based on the circumstances of the case. Where a suit has taken many years to mature for hearing, an application during vacation may not be justified as urgent. The principle applies where vacation jurisdiction is invoked. It ensures that urgency is genuine, not contrived. The principle reflects the need for proper use of vacation jurisdiction. It prevents parties from abusing the process. The court must assess the facts to determine urgency. The principle provides guidance on what constitutes urgency for vacation applications.