“The appellants/applicants resorted to crafting reasons for their failure to obtain prior directive of this court to exceed the necessary number of pages and strayed into unimpressive inadvertence of counsel, which counsel generally flaunt to secure respite for their clients. In their affidavit in support, the learned counsel for the appellants chose to fling inadvertence of counsel, I am compelled to lend my unconditional support to the voice of my lord and learned brother OGUNWUMIJU JSC, that counsel habitually give reasons like inadvertence of counsel loosely translated as incompetence in Incorporated Trustees of Ladies of Saint Mulumba v. Ekhator (2022)LPELR- 57831 (SC); (2022) 15 NWLR (Pt.1852) 35.On my part, I dare say where counsel for whatever reason chooses to overlook his duties and dub so doing as inadvertence, the court will not endorse such flimsy brazen and unashamed admission of indolence and grant the counsel any indulgence. It is strange that learned counsel opted to rely on the 1999 Rules of this court when in his affidavit in support, he clearly admitted that the 2023 Practice Direction does not allow him more than 40pages. Learned counsel for the appellant knows that he filed no brief on behalf of his clients. The instant case is clearly that of omission on the part of counsel to do what is right and proper on behalf of his client. It is the sin of counsel which the client must of necessity bear the brunt. Counsel’s failure to obey and respect the
Read More