"The second point or reason relied upon by the applicant as the factor constituting the delay relates to the period negotiations were on between him and the respondent for an amicable settlement of Parties should, at all times be encouraged to embark on settlement of their differences outside the Courts but this is not to say that the right of exercise of right of appeal is extinguished on the party merely because he chose to explore settlement out of Court.

 

The two can go pari pasu, that is, the party who desires to appeal against a decision can go and do so while at the same time continue with negotiations for settlement out of Court. The person seeking the indulgence of the Court to exercise discretion in his favour is bound to explain and give satisfactory reasons as would account for his delay. If he succeeds in giving that account, the extent or duration of delay becomes immaterial. It can be overlooked by the Courts. See: Yesufu Vs. Cooperative Bank (1989) NWLR (Pt. 110) 483 at 485 but the duration of delay only becomes material once the person seeking to appeal is unable to account for it. The case of the applicant fall into this latter category. He has been unable to give satisfactory account for his delay to file his appeal within the time prescribed by law."

 

Per HUSAINI, J.C.A. IN MUSTAPHA v. MAHMUD CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43616(CA)