WRONG PROCEDURE ROBS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION

BREACH OF PRACTICE & PROCEDURE DOES NOT RENDER NULLITY

Samuel Osigwe v. PSPLS Management Consortium Ltd & Ors. (2009) 3 NWLR 378 SC: “Breach of a rule of practice and procedure does not render the proceedings a nullity but merely an irregularity.”

PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY

It is not every procedural irregularity which affects the validity of proceedings. – Uwaifo JSC. Ekpanya v. Akpan (1988)

CRIMINAL TRIAL IS FROM ARRAIGNMENT TO CONVICTION; THE FINAL ADDRESS IS PART OF THE TRIAL

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)

APPROPRIATE TIME TO RAISE AN OBJECTION AS TO PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY

It has since been established by a plethora of authorities that the appropriate time at which a party to proceedings should raise an objection based on procedural irregularity is at the commencement of the proceedings or at the time when the irregularity arises. If the party sleeps on that right and allows the proceedings to continue on the irregularity to finality, then the party cannot be heard to complain, at the concluding stage of the proceedings or on appeal thereafter that there was a procedural irregularity which vitiated the proceedings- See C.F.A.O. v. The Onitsha Industries Ltd. 11 N.L.R. 102 at p.103; Johnson v. Aderemi & Ors. 13 W.A.C.A. 297; Adebayo & Ors. v. Chief Shonowo & Ors. (1969) 1 All N.L.R. 176 at p.190; Ashiru Noibi v. Fikolati & Anor. (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 52) 619 at p. 632 and Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 2) 195 at pp.202-203. The only exception to this general rule is that the party would be allowed to complain on appeal if it can show that it had suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason of the procedural irregularity.

— Uwais, JSC. Saude v. Abdullahi (1989) – SC.197/1987

RULES OF COURT ARE MADE FOR COURT’S BENEFIT, NOT OTHERWISE

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)