" a party asking for enlargement of time within which to appeal not only does he have the burden of proving two facts before he gets the indulgence, that is: good and substantial reasons for the delay, and a ground(s) of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard; he shares additional burden with the Court to ensure that the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed: Ratnam v. Cumarasamy (1964) 3 ALL E.R. 933 at 935; Bank Of Baroda v. Mercantle Bank (1987) 6 S.C 341 at 350. Even where the application is not opposed the Court still bears the onerous responsibility of satisfying itself that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the grant of the indulgence because the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed: Nwabuba v. Enemuo (1988) 5 S.C.NJ. 154”.

PER E.EKO, J.S.C IN THE CASE OF COUNTY & CITY BRICKS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD VS HON. MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ANOR : LER [2019]SC.239/2011