RULES OF COURT MUST BE OBEYED

OFORKIRE VS. MADUIKE ORS. (2003) LPELR – 2269 (SC) held that: “It is elementary law that rules of Court must be obeyed or complied with, as they are not made for fun.”

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?

BREACH OF PROCEDURE IS MERE IRREGULARITY

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE & PROCEDURAL LAW

“24, Mr, Onuora rightly set out the distinction between substantive and procedural laws when he said that ‘as a general rule, laws which fix duties, establish rights and responsibilities among and for persons natural or otherwise are substantive laws in character while those which merely prescribe the manner in which such rights and responsibilities may be exercised and enforced in a Court are procedural law.’”

— Ukor v Laleye (2005) – ECW/CCJ/APP/01/04

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?

WRONG PROCEDURE ROBS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION

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)

ONCE A STATUTE PRESCRIBES A METHOD, OTHER METHODS ARE EXCLUDED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

RULES OF COURT MUST BE OBEYED

Was this dictum helpful?

MUST USE OF A PARTICULAR COMMENCEMENT PROCEDURE

Was this dictum helpful?

BREACH OF PROCEDURE IS MERE IRREGULARITY

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE & PROCEDURAL LAW

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE RULES OF COURT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH

Was this dictum helpful?

WRONG PROCEDURE ROBS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION

Was this dictum helpful?