Ratio Decidendi

Per Muntaka-Coomassie, JSC, in Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority & Anor (2010) NLC-123-299-2006(SC) at p. 8, paras. C–E:

"The question of adjournment is within the discretion of the court, in exercising such discretion the court must consider all the circumstances of the case in ensuring that the discretion is exercised judicially and judiciously. In exercising its discretion no case can be authority for the other, because that in effect would be an end to the discretion. Each case has its peculiar facts which cannot be the same with the others although they may be similar. Hence, in exercising its discretion the court has to consider the totality of the cases. The fact that the appellate court would have exercised its discretion differently from that of the trial court is not a sufficient reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court."
View Judgment →

Explanation / Scope

This principle establishes that adjournment is within the court’s discretion, exercised judicially and judiciously based on the circumstances of each case. No case is authority for another in discretionary matters. The fact that an appellate court would have exercised discretion differently is not sufficient reason to interfere. The principle applies where adjournment decisions are challenged. It ensures that discretion is respected. The principle reflects the case-by-case nature of discretion. It prevents unnecessary interference. The court must consider the totality of the case. The principle provides guidance on adjournment discretion.

Cases Applying This Principle

Udoji Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority & Anor