“An Applicant seeking to sway the exercise of the court’s discretion in favour of granting his application for extension of Time to appeal or to seek leave to appeal must place enough materials before the court to warrant the exercise of the discretion in his favour. See WILLIAMS V. HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1982) 1-2 SC 153; E.F.P. CO. LTD. V. N.D.I.C. (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1039) 216. In an application of this nature, the Applicant must satisfy the two mandatory preconditions laid down by Order 2 Rule 31(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, namely: (i) Good and substantial reasons for his failure to appeal within time; and (ii) Grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. The conditions are conjunctive, not disjunctive, meaning both conditions are expected to Co-exist if the application is to be granted. Hence, failure to establish either of them will spell doom for the application. The first condition is fulfilled by means of deposition in the affidavit in support of the application, while the second calls for the assessment of the cogency of the proposed grounds of appeal in relation to the ruling or judgment sought to be appealed against. This area of the law is a path which has been pre-charted by a host of binding judicial authorities. See OPTIMUM CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY (DEV) LTD V. AKE SHAREHOLDINGS LTD (2021) LPELR – 56229 (SC); EZEONWUKA V. EZEONONUJU (2018) 15 NWLR (PT. 1642) 347; OLATUNBOSUN V. TEXACO (2012) 14 NWLR (PT. 1319) 200 A.G., FED. V. A.I.C. LTD (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 378) 388 as well as Order 2 Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules.” Per ADAMU JAURO, JSC in SHELL PET. DEV. CO. OF NIG. LTD & ANOR V. TORCHI & 3ORS (2022-LCER-46638-SC) @ 19 – 20; E – G. https://lawcompasser.com/shell-petroleum-development-company-of-nigeria-limited-anor-v-chief-isaac-obort-ntito-torchi-3ors/