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
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.”
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)
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.”
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
It is not every procedural irregularity which affects the validity of proceedings. – Uwaifo JSC. Ekpanya v. Akpan (1988)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry