CIVIL PROCEDURE — Vacation jurisdiction — Urgency — Burden of proving urgency
Ratio Decidendi
Per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, in Onwuka v. Ononuju & Ors (2009) NLC-123-246-2002(SC) at p. 24; Paras B-C:
"The urgency of an application under Order 26 Rule 9(2)(c) (ibid) may in the outermost of the question be a matter of mixed law and fact which ever case it is, the onus of proving the fact of urgency of the application is on the appellant. The appellant has not discharged this burden in this matter."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the burden of proving urgency for vacation applications rests on the applicant. The principle applies where a party seeks to invoke vacation jurisdiction. It ensures that applicants demonstrate genuine urgency. The principle reflects the general rule that he who asserts must prove. It prevents parties from making unsubstantiated claims of urgency. The court must require proof of urgency. The principle provides guidance on the burden of proof in vacation applications. It ensures that vacation jurisdiction is not abused.