This power is inherently discretionary, meaning the court has the flexibility to decide based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, rather than being bound by rigid rules. However, this discretion is not absolute or "unfettered"; it must be exercised judicially and judiciously, guided by established legal principles and the overriding goal of achieving substantial justice.
Principles Guiding the Exercise of Discretion
When considering an application for an extension of time, courts typically weigh several crucial factors:
1. Reason for Delay: The applicant must provide a convincing and reasonable explanation for the delay. Vague or unsubstantiated excuses, or evidence of apathy, negligence, or sloppiness, are generally not favored. The court looks for "sufficient cause" for the failure to act within the prescribed period.
2. Length of Delay: The period of delay must not be inordinate. While longer delays require stronger justifications, the court assesses this in relation to the overall context of the case.
3. Diligence of the Applicant: The applicant should demonstrate a continuous intention to pursue the matter and show diligence in addressing the issue, even if outside the original timeline.
4. Merits of the Case: The court often considers whether the intended action (e.g., an appeal) has a reasonable chance of success or raises arguable points of law. If there are serious issues of jurisdiction or alleged illegalities, the court may be more inclined to grant an extension, even with some delay.
5. Prejudice to Parties: The court will evaluate the potential prejudice or hardship that might be suffered by both the applicant if the extension is refused, and the opposing party if it is granted. A fair balance must be struck.
6. Overall Justice: Ultimately, the court's discretion is exercised to ensure that justice is done. While rules of court provide a timetable for litigation and should be respected, the court can extend time if doing so prevents a clear injustice or ensures that a matter can be heard on its merits.
It is important to note that the court's power to extend time is designed to prevent procedural technicalities from overshadowing the pursuit of substantive justice, but it does not grant an automatic right to extensions. Each application is decided on its own unique facts, with the burden on the applicant to convince the court that an extension is warranted.
L.O.Y (Nig) Ltd v. U.B Plc (2017) ALL FWLR (873) Page 1653 at 1675, para B-G.
