Civil Procedure and Practice (794)
HELD:
"It was held in DANTATA & SAWOE CONSTR. CO. LTD v. IBRAHIM (2004) ALL FWLR (pt.208) 930 AT 938, that once an application is filed, it has to be considered to avoid breach of fundamental right to fair hearing.
HELD:
"The point to be stressed here is that the fact that a thing has been a practice does not make it a law.
HELD:
"The law is trite, that while considering an interlocutory application, the trial Court must restrain itself from commenting on the substance of the main case, ahead of time, or from delving into the substantive matter.
HELD:
"All Court processes must be signed in the manner prescribed by the Legal Practitioners Act.
HELD:
"The signing of an originating process goes to the jurisdiction of the Court.
HELD:
"... The harsh business realities referred to by the Appellant's counsel remain within the realm of speculation as there is no evidence in support.
HELD:
"...it is true that the position of the law that inadvertence of counsel can sustain an application for extension of time has not changed.
HELD:
"It is obvious on the face of the record of appeal (pages 2&3) that the writ of summons and the statement of claim filed by the 1st Respondent (plaintiff) were purportedly signed by: