This is an out-flow of the elementary principle of law that where a specific procedure is provided for commencing an action, a party seeking to use the procedure must bring his case within those covered by that procedure otherwise his action will be incompetent.
– Abiru, JCA. Okoli v. Gaya (2014)
SHARE ON
In essence therefore, initiating an action on a wrong procedure robs the court of its jurisdiction to adjudicate over such matter. The issue of jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate over a matter before it is a threshold issue that goes to the root or foundation of adjudication. This stems from the trite position of the law, that once it is discovered that a court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter, any decision/proceedings emanating from such a court regarding that matter, no matter how well rendered or conducted, is a nullity.
– Bage JCA. Ayetobi v. Taiwo (2014)
Sonuga and Ors v. Anadein (1967) NMLR 77 at 79, the Supreme Court per Lewis, J.S.C. said: “In the appeal before us, the question appears to be, is it right for the defendant to take advantage of an irregularity he had himself accepted and had acted on it, without any harm done to him? We think it is now too late for him to raise an objection.”
The Rules of Court made to regulate the practice and procedure in the Supreme Court and indeed Rules made for the regulation of practice and procedure in the various courts in Nigeria have not been made for or to lie only in the statute books. They are made for the benefit of courts on the one hand and the legal practitioners and litigants in our courts on the other hand being guidelines for steps to be taken in any proceeding they must be followed.
– Obaseki, JSC. Ekpan v. Agunu (1986)
It is trite that once the law has prescribed a particular method of exercising a statutory power, any other method of exercise of it is excluded: so there can be no question of the lessor in this case recovering possession by resorting to a right of re-entry or any other type of self-help. I agree with Chief Umeadi that although section 28(1) of the Law states that the lessor “may enter a suit”, “may” should be construed as mandatory i.e. as meaning “shall” or “must”.
– Nnaemeka-agu, JSC. Ude v. Nwara (1993)
In the interpretation of the above provision, it must be borne in mind that prima facie the Laws are made to be obeyed. All persons, authorities, agencies of government and government must obey the laws of the land. It is the degree of obedience accorded to the laws of the land that distinguishes the state of development in a given country. When laws are not obeyed, anarchy sets in.
— Oguntade, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008
I make haste to state here that the criminal trial of every accused person begins with arraignment and culminates with conviction and sentence in judgment. In the precedent relied upon by the Respondent’s learned Counsel, STATE v. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (FT. 1354) AT PP.586, Mohammad, JSC, defined criminal trial to mean “the whole of the proceedings including the judgment and sentence” This therefore has been the constitutionally inalienable right enjoyed by every accused person. It is the Respondent’s constitutional right to be heard through his written/oral address or Counsel’s address on his behalf. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) contemplated written address or Counsel’s address to be part of the criminal trial or proceedings, when it provides that: Section 294 (1) Every Court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof. Per NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC in NDU v. STATE (1990) LPELR-1975(SC) (P. 45, PARAS. A-C) relying on Obodo v. Olomu and Anor (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.59) 111, at p. 123-124, re-iterated this point thus: …this Court has stated before, the addresses of Counsel are an essential part of the trial. That can be the only possible inference from the fact that the constitution itself used the conclusion of addresses as a very important determinant of the time limit for delivery of judgments under Section 258 of the Constitution of 1979. See also STATE v. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1354) AT PP.585, wherein this Honourable Court held that “addresses by parties or their Counsel are an integral part of the hearing or trial of an accused person.”
— U.M. Abba Aji, JSC. State v. Andrew Yanga (SC.712/2018, 15 Jan 2021)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry