Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

DEFINITION OF SUBSTITUTION

Dictum

In PERETU vs. GARIGA (2012) LPELR (15534) (SC) 1 at 25, Ngwuta, JSC stated: “Substitute, a noun, means ‘a person or thing that you use or have instead of the one you normally use or have’ … the word ‘substitute’ as … ‘one who stands in another’s place.’ ‘Substitution … as ‘A designation of a person or thing to take the place of another person or thing; the process by which one person or thing takes the place of another person or thing.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

PRINCIPLES ON SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IN LITIGATION

Muhammad, JSC (now CJN) stated as follows in IN RE: APEH (2017) LPELR (42035) (SC) 1 at 35 -36: “I think it is apt for me at this stage, to remind my noble Lords, in a concise manner the general principles of the law relating to substitution. When one puts something by way of replacement or change of another, whether a person or a thing, that would amount to substitution. The law may permit a person to substitute another in a law suit (including appeal) where there is a genuine case of death, bankruptcy, assignment, transmission or devolution of interest or liability of a party to the suit or appeal, where the need to substitute is obvious in fact and in law. Where a party is dead, he cannot physically take part any more in the proceedings. His position must necessarily be taken over by the beneficiary who inherits him and who subsequently inherits the litigation. Otherwise, the action for or against the deceased will abate unless appropriate steps are taken to substitute a living person for the deceased … Bankruptcy of one of the parties to a suit while the suit is pending, may also abate except where a trustee(s) takes over. Comprehensive rules are made by the various (now unified) High Court Rules which take care of such circumstances.”

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTIES SHOULD HAVE FREE HAND TO CHANGE PARTIES IN LITIGATION PROCESS

Tobi, JSC stated as follows in EJEZIE vs. ANUWU (2008) 12 NWLR (PT 1101) 446 at 485: “Generally an innocuous one granted as a matter of routine. This is because of the state of our adjectival law that parties should have free hand to change persons in the litigation process. And so applications for substitution do not generally give any problem …”

Was this dictum helpful?