ADORSU AND OTHERS vs. SOKPOLI [1983]DLHC2078

Date	1983-03-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2078

APATU-PLANGE J.

SAMMY TAY FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPLICANTS.

S. GBADEGBE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1983]DLHC2078
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ADORSU AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>SOKPOLI <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 1133<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
11 MARCH 1983<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SAMMY TAY FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

S. GBADEGBE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APATU-PLANGE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APATU PLANGE J.<o:p></o:p>On 28 May
1982, the defendants herein filed a motion in this court for an order that the
plaintiff should provide substantial cash security or enter into a bond with
justified sureties to secure the payment of any costs that may be awarded
against him in this action. The application was brought under the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 65, rr. 4 and 5 and Order 52,
r. 1. Counsel for the plaintiff objected to the application on the grounds that
under Order 30, r. 5, since the application is being brought after summons for
directions, it should have been brought by summons and not by way of motion. He
therefore submitted that the application is incompetent and ought to be struck
out. Counsel for the defendants in reply submitted that under Order 65, rr. 4
and 5, there is no form provided by which such an application can be brought.
He argued that the absurdity of the objection means that an application for
interim injunction after summons for directions must also be by way of summons
and this is not the procedure in the courts. He therefore submitted that the
application before the court is proper.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now Order
30, r. 5 reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“5. Any
application subsequently to the original summons and before judgment for any
directions as to any interlocutory matter or thing by any party shall be made
under the summons by two clear days’ notice to the other party stating the
grounds of the application.”<o:p></o:p>It is not
in dispute that at the time the defendants filed their instant application in
respect of an interlocutory matter, the summons for directions had already been
taken but judgment in the case had not been pronounced. Under Order 30, r. 5
therefore this application should have been brought by way of summons.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the defendant also referred the court to Order 52, r. 1. This Order reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“1. Where
by these rules any application is authorised to be made to the Court or a
Judge, such application if made to a judge in Court, shall be made by motion.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He argued
that since Order 65, rr. 4 and 5 are silent on the form the application for
security for costs should take and since the application is to a judge in court
he was perfectly entitled to bring the application by way of motion.<o:p></o:p>The New
Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines motion as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“An
application to a court or a judge for an order directing something to be done
in the applicant’s favour. Ordinarily a motion is to be made only after a
notice has been given to the parties affected, but in certain cases it may be
made ex-parte.”<o:p></o:p>It also
defines summons as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“A
document issued from the office of a court of justice, calling upon the person
to whom it is directed to attend before a judge or officer of the court. In the
High Court of Justice, a summons is a mode of making an application to a judge
or a master in chambers for the decision of matters of procedure prior to, or
in lieu of, the hearing of an action in court, e.g. summons for directions.”<o:p></o:p>