CASE TITLE: AKINBINU & ORS v. AKEREDOLU & ORS (2026) LPELR-84111(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH JUNE, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of Ogun State, Ota Division, Coram: Catherine Ogunsanya J, in Suit No. HCT/26/2009: Mr. Olatunji Akeredolu & Ors V. Mr. Adeagbo Theo Akinbinu & Ors delivered on 5/5/2015, in which the Appellants, as Defendants/Applicants, were ordered to deposit the sum of N100,000.00 as cost for security for the diligent prosecution of their Defense.
Before the trial Court, the Respondents were Claimants in a suit commenced by them against the Appellants, as Defendants. The parties were represented by their counsel from the commencement of the suit to when pleadings were deemed closed and the suit was adjourned for a pre-trial conference.
However, the Appellants, though duly served with the processes hearing notice notifying them of the date of the pre-trial, failed to appear. On more than three occasions, the hearing of the Respondents’ suit was adjourned to accommodate the Appellants despite being served with the hearing notices. Trial commenced and the Respondents called witnesses, and on all occasions, the suit was adjourned for cross-examination by the Appellants, yet despite the service of hearing notice on the Appellants, and a letter to their counsel, they still failed, neglected and refused to appear and participate in the proceedings before the trial Court. Consequently, the Appellants’ case was closed, and the matter was adjourned to 5/5/2015 for adoption of written addresses by the parties, with a fresh hearing notice served on the Appellants.
On 12/11/2015, before the trial Court, the Appellant as Defendants had, by a motion on notice, prayed the Court for an order granting leave to the Appellants to defend the Respondents’ suit by recalling the witnesses in the suit for cross-examination. The application was duly heard and granted by the Court. However, Court had in its ruling ordered the Appellant to deposit the sum of N100,000.00 with the Chief Registrar of the Ogun State Judiciary as cost for security and also depose to an affidavit to diligently defend the Respondents’ case. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered a sole issue in determination of the notice of preliminary objection, thus:
Whether or not this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain this Appeal
In consideration of the merits of the appeal, the Court considered a sole issue, thus:
Whether the Order of the Court ordering the Appellants as Defendants to pay the sum of N100,000.00 as Security before they can defend the suit has not fettered the Constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing of the Appellants.
DECISION/HELD:
The Court dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL- PARTIES TO APPEAL: Effect of constituting parties differently from the trial Court in the Court of Appeal without the leave of Court
- APPEAL- INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL: Time limit for filing an appeal against an interlocutory decision and the proper Court to file notice of appeal against same
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Meaning of fair hearing; whether a party who has been given the opportunity to present their case can complain of lack of fair hearing
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Whether the imposition of security for costs to ensure diligent prosecution is a breach of the right to fair hearing
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
