Where such statutory or constitutional provision is made for the filing of a claim, the procedure so laid down ought to be followed in making the claim and no other one. See Gbadamosi Lahan v. Attorney-General of Western Nigeria (1963) 2 SCNLR 47; (1963) 1 All NLR 226.
— Iguh JSC. Onuoha v State (1998) – SC. 24/1996
SHARE ON
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.”
“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
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)
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)
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.”
Gabriel Madukolu and Ors v. Johnson Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 at 596, Bairamian F.J., said: “If the court is competent, the proceedings are not a nullity; but they may be attacked on the ground of irregularity in the conduct of the trial; the argument will be that the irregularity was so grave as to affect the fairness of the trial and the soundness of the adjudication. It may turn out that the party complaining was to blame, or had acquiesced in the irregularity… A defect in procedure is not always fatal …”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry