The five justices of the Supreme Court were in a good mood; that much was apparent from their calm handling of the defective application before them.
The Respondent's Counsel, Mr ABC, had filed a preliminary objection on issues of jurisdiction. Rather than chewing Counsel out, the court courteously asked how he wanted to proceed.
With much confidence and ASSURANCE😉😉😉 ABC proceeded to begin to move the defective application. (Here's a tip completely on the house: lawyers will attempt to get away with anything if you let them).
The Appellants' counsel Mr XYZ, jumped to his feet and objected stridently. He informed the court that the application could not be heard. No big surprise. According to the Rules of Court, the preliminary objection should have been subsumed in the Respondent's Brief.
Yours truly kept whipping her head this way and that watching as the lawyers argued back and forth. I have since learned in this profession that a child who asks questions never loses his way. And that's why I never go to court on any given day without opening my eyes and ears wide to pick something here and there.
Law practice is an art and like all arts, you attain a certain elegance when you study the masters.
Anyway, the Court was quick to agree with Mr XYZ, the Appellants' counsel that Mr ABC, had filed a defective application possibly in order to waste the time of the court.
Defeated, Mr ABC withdrew the offensive application and requested an adjournment to effect the correction.
Seeing the court's sympathy for his argument, the other lawyer, Mr XYZ began to milk it. He was elderly and stooped with age, cutting a fragile figure.
He tilted his head to the side as he rose to his feet and began to wring his hands as he listed his many sufferings at the hands of the Respondent's counsel. By the time he was done, a passerby might have been moved to tears on his behalf.
"So, Mr XYZ what is your application?" The Presiding justice demanded, after we had all been subjected to an endless litany of his woes.
Counsel puffed up his cheeks and let out a put-upon sigh as though considering the matter. And then with great reluctance stamped onto his angular features, he said, "My lords we shall be consenting to an adjournment to enable Mr ABC put his house in order. But we shall be requesting a minimal cost of N100,000 Sirs."
The bench dissolved in laughter as their lordships engaged in a rare show of hilarity. "You want 100 thousand? In this economy? Mr XYZ!"
And they laughed some more.
Mr XYZ silently resumed his seat in dignified silence.
"Did you hear him Mr ABC? He asked for 100 thousand," one of them shouted down to the other lawyer against whom the cost was demanded.
Mr ABC got to his feet, hesitated in the face of five laughing judges and equally sat down himself joining in their laughter.
I threw him a worried glance. Wasn't he going to oppose the application at all?
He wasn't looking at me; he and other lawyers were laughing along with their lordships... it was the polite thing to do.
I faced forward, sober as a judge; and no the irony was not lost on me.
Three minutes later, after managing to scribble a few words whilst fighting down their laughter, the Justices quieted.
The Presiding Justice raised his head, "Cost of 100 thousand granted as prayed. Case adjourned to 23rd October 2018."
I felt shock reverberate through Mr ABC who happened to be seated right beside me. He threw me a glazed look as he tried to figure out how to inform his client of the costs he had just earned him. He had apparently thought it would not be granted or at least not the full sum; perhaps 50? He leaned over and whispered as much to me in dismay, "They granted the full amount"
I let my unsympathetic gaze do the talking for me, "You snooze you lose."
He had not opposed the application so of course it was granted. Equity aids the diligent... in law, and in life.
