Whether an applicant applying for extension of time must satisfy the court that there are good and substantial reasons for failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of the rules of court

"It is also beyond doubt that an application for extension of time, as in the case, is not automatic. It is not granted as a matter of course. Such application requires that the court exercises its discretion judicially and judiciously. Any applicant seeking the indulgence of such discretion of the court must satisfy the court in its affidavit in support of the motion, that there are “good and substantial reasons” for the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Rules of this Court."

On what constitutes the phrase "good and substantial reasons" the Rules of Court did not define nor describe the words. However, the description of the phrase in relation to the provision in the Rules of the court is traced to judicial precedent. The supreme court describing "good reason" PER TOBI JSC, said in: Ikenta Best (Nig) Ltd vs. A.G. Rivers State (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt.1084) 612 at 642-643,

"The reasons must be good. In other words, the reasons must possess the quality that is satisfactory, favourable, useful or suitable to the application. The reason must not be bad in the sense that they are unacceptable. Substantial reasons are essential, material and important reasons. Reasons which are peripheral strongly cannot suffice. The pendulum should weigh in favour of granting the application and not just enough to balance the weight or on an even keel"

In Attorney general of the federation V Bi-Courtney limited SUIT NO: CA/A/361A/2012

Per SANUSI, J.C.A. (Pp.14-15,paras.F-A)