O. Ogunniyi

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff.

The court applied the five-part test for setting aside a default judgment, finding that the motion was brought promptly, the failure to file a defence was adequately explained, and the defendants demonstrated an arguable case on the merits based on a draft Statement of Defence and Third Party Claim.

The court concluded that the plaintiff would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

The motion was granted, the default judgment was set aside, and the defendants were awarded costs of $3,000.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partition and sale, the respondent sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant made unfounded allegations of dishonest acts against the respondent.

The court also noted the aggressive nature of the motion and the significant power imbalance between the parties.

Costs were fixed at $20,987.66.

The applicant brought a motion for the partition and sale of a property registered in the respondent's name, claiming a 50% beneficial interest pursuant to a Trust Agreement.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the property was her family home and the applicant had breached the agreement by failing to pay expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant sought equitable relief with unclean hands and that crucial facts regarding the validity and interpretation of the Trust Agreement required a full trial with viva voce evidence.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the plaintiff and the defendant by counterclaim sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, noting the responding parties' unreasonable delays, unproven allegations of fraud and fabricated evidence against a solicitor, and the terms of the mortgage which provided for substantial indemnity costs.

The court ordered the responding parties to pay total costs of $181,903.41.

The appellant sought to appeal a trial judge's order fixing costs at $4,000 against him, but failed to seek leave to appeal in his notice of appeal or factum.

The Divisional Court noted that under section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal as to costs requires leave, which is granted sparingly.

Finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate strong grounds to interfere with the trial judge's discretionary costs order, the court refused leave and quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.