The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed Major Hamza Al-Mustapha’s application for an extension of time to appeal a Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment concerning a property in Asokoro, Abuja.
A three-member panel unanimously rejected the application on Monday, ruling that Al-Mustapha had not provided sufficient reasons to justify allowing him to challenge the earlier judgment outside the prescribed period. The court also ordered him to pay N1 million in costs to Al-Nuri Properties Limited, the sole respondent in the appeal.
The dispute concerns a property that Al-Mustapha reportedly sold to Al-Nuri Properties for about N100 million. According to the account before the courts, Al-Mustapha later sought to reclaim the property after its value increased, arguing that the transaction was effectively a loan and that he intended to refund the money paid by the company.
Al-Nuri Properties rejected that position and instituted legal proceedings on March 16, 2020, seeking to establish its claim to the property. The FCT High Court sitting in Zuba subsequently entered a default judgment in favour of the company on June 16, 2023, after Al-Mustapha’s legal team failed to participate in the proceedings.
Rather than appeal the 2023 judgment within the applicable period, Al-Mustapha returned to the same High Court on April 15, 2024, asking that the judgment be set aside. That application was dismissed on September 24, 2025.
By that point, the deadline for appealing the original judgment had passed. The prescribed deadline was September 15, 2024, meaning Al-Mustapha needed the Court of Appeal to grant him an extension before he could pursue an appeal against the 2023 decision.
In rejecting the application, the Court of Appeal took issue with Al-Mustapha’s explanation for the delay. Justice Okon Abang, who delivered the lead judgment, said the record showed that several hearing notices had been issued during the proceedings but that Al-Mustapha failed to honour them.
The former military officer had argued that his lawyers abandoned the case, but the appellate court found that explanation insufficient to justify the failure to act within the required period. The court effectively held that responsibility for pursuing the case could not simply be shifted to counsel without a convincing explanation for the prolonged inaction.
The panel also rejected an argument that Al-Mustapha had been denied his constitutional right to fair hearing. According to the court, any circumstances that might have contributed to such a situation were self-inflicted because of his failure to participate in the proceedings and take the necessary steps to challenge the judgment on time.
Justice Abang described the conduct as amounting to “doing the right thing at the wrong time,” stressing that an applicant seeking an extension of time must provide a reasonable and convincing explanation for the delay.
The appellate court consequently dismissed the application as lacking merit and amounting to an abuse of court process. The ruling does not amount to a fresh determination of every underlying issue surrounding the property transaction; rather, it means Al-Mustapha failed to obtain the procedural permission needed to pursue the proposed appeal out of time.
The case illustrates the importance of procedural deadlines in civil litigation. Even where a party believes a lower court decision was wrongly reached, failure to comply with the prescribed period for challenging that decision can create an additional legal hurdle. An application for extension of time is not automatically granted; the applicant must satisfy the court that the circumstances justify the delay.
For Al-Mustapha, Monday’s ruling leaves the 2023 default judgment in favour of Al-Nuri Properties standing, at least insofar as the rejected application was concerned. The immediate consequence is also financial, with the Court of Appeal imposing N1 million in costs against him.
Comments
Post a Comment