APPLICANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/75/2012

BETWEEN

OCEANIC HOMES SAVINGS & LOANS LTD        …………    RESPONDENT

AND

SURU WORLDWIDE VENTURES NIG. LTD          …………    APPLICANT


APPLICANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE

1.0    INTRODUCTION
This is a Motion brought pursuant to Order 7 Rule 1(1)(3) and Order 48 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 and under the inherent Jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

The Applicant is praying the Honourable Court for an Order extending the time within which the Applicant may file and serve its Memorandum of Appearance and Counter Affidavit. The Applicant equally prays for an Order deeming the already filed and served processes as properly filed and served.

The Motion is supported by an Affidavit of Twelve Paragraphs deposed to by Anthony Aregbe, a Legal Practitioner in the Law firm of Messrs Layi Babatunde (SAN) & Co., Counsel to the Applicant.

2.0    ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether having regards to the circumstances of the Application, it will be in the interest of justice to grant same.

3.0    ARGUMENT
3.1    It is our submission that the Respondent’s Application dated 1st February, 2012 is an Originating process in the context of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Rules, to which the Applicant herein is required under Order 7 Rule 1 (1) to file its Memorandum of Appearance within thirty days at the Registry of this Court.
See also: Order 52 Rule 15 (j) Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009.

3.2    We submit as averred in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit that the Respondent’s Application was served on the Applicant on 2nd February, 2012 and the Applicant is expected by the Rules of this Court to enter appearance within 30 days being 3rd March, 2012. However the Applicant did not enter appearance until 2nd July, 2012.

3.3    However, by Order 48 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, this Honourable Court is empowered to extend the time for doing any act or taking any proceedings. Hence this application.

3.4    We respectfully urge the Court to accept the reason given in our Affidavit as material ground upon which the Honourable Court an exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant.

3.5    On this, we humbly refer the Court to WILLIAMS & ORS V HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1982) 1-2 SC at Page 74 wherein the Supreme Court held that the Court is required to exercise its discretion to extend the time where some material upon which to base such exercise of discretion is placed before it. It is submitted with respect that the Affidavit in support has placed material reason before the Court for the delay.


4.0    CONCLUSION
We urge the Honourable Court to grant the prayers of the Applicant, as the delay was not meant to be a slight on the Court.




Dated ………………….. day of …………………. 2012