STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

WRONG PROCEDURE ROBS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

procedure

TO SATISFY NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT BEFORE ADOPTION OF HIGH COURT PROCEDURE

It is my considered opinion that for Order 23 of the National Industrial Court [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017 to apply, Counsel must satisfy the Court as to the following: a. That there is no provision made in the Rules as to the practice and procedure sought to be adopted. b. That there is a provision made but it is in adequate. c. That the procedure sought to be adopted will do substantial justice to the parties in the particular circumstance. In my view, learned Counsel has not satisfied these conditions. In addition, what learned Counsel sought to do is unknown to law.

— I.G. Nweneka, J. Anyina v. Messrs First City Monument Bank Ltd. (NICN/ABK/03/2017, 12th December 2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

MUST USE OF A PARTICULAR COMMENCEMENT PROCEDURE

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE RULES OF COURT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH

Rules of Court are purposely made to be obeyed and followed, therefore all procedure set by the rules must be complied with. However, where in the course of following the rules some errors or mistakes are committed or omitted, such error or mistakes would not out rightly render the proceedings a nullity. Depending on the circumstance of each particular case, where the noncompliance has occasioned miscarriage of justice or where the right of the adverse party will be affected, the Court shall not treat the non-compliance as a mere irregularity and as such mandate the rules to be followed or nullify the proceedings as the case may be. But in a situation where it has not occasioned miscarriage of justice it shall be treated as a mere irregularity and should not vitiate the proceedings. This is because all rules of Court are made in aid of justice and that being so, the interest of justice will have to be given priority over any rule, compliance of which will lead to outright injustice. The Rules are not sine quo non in the determination of a case and therefore not immutable.

– Abba Aji JCA. Usman v. Tamadena (2015) – CA/K/95/2009

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE TO IRREGULARITY

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.