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)
SHARE ON
It is trite that once the law has prescribed a particular method of exercising a statutory power, any other method of exercise of it is excluded: so there can be no question of the lessor in this case recovering possession by resorting to a right of re-entry or any other type of self-help. I agree with Chief Umeadi that although section 28(1) of the Law states that the lessor “may enter a suit”, “may” should be construed as mandatory i.e. as meaning “shall” or “must”.
– Nnaemeka-agu, JSC. Ude v. Nwara (1993)
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
I make haste to state here that the criminal trial of every accused person begins with arraignment and culminates with conviction and sentence in judgment. In the precedent relied upon by the Respondent’s learned Counsel, STATE v. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (FT. 1354) AT PP.586, Mohammad, JSC, defined criminal trial to mean “the whole of the proceedings including the judgment and sentence” This therefore has been the constitutionally inalienable right enjoyed by every accused person. It is the Respondent’s constitutional right to be heard through his written/oral address or Counsel’s address on his behalf. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) contemplated written address or Counsel’s address to be part of the criminal trial or proceedings, when it provides that: Section 294 (1) Every Court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof. Per NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC in NDU v. STATE (1990) LPELR-1975(SC) (P. 45, PARAS. A-C) relying on Obodo v. Olomu and Anor (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.59) 111, at p. 123-124, re-iterated this point thus: …this Court has stated before, the addresses of Counsel are an essential part of the trial. That can be the only possible inference from the fact that the constitution itself used the conclusion of addresses as a very important determinant of the time limit for delivery of judgments under Section 258 of the Constitution of 1979. See also STATE v. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1354) AT PP.585, wherein this Honourable Court held that “addresses by parties or their Counsel are an integral part of the hearing or trial of an accused person.”
— U.M. Abba Aji, JSC. State v. Andrew Yanga (SC.712/2018, 15 Jan 2021)
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.”
In SOLANKE VS. SOMEFUN (1974) 1 SC 141, Sowemimo, JSC (as he then was) opined: “Rules of Court are meant to be complied with … Rules of Court are made to be followed. They regulate matters in Court and help parties to present their case for purpose of a fair and quick trial. It is the strict compliance with these rules of Court that makes for quicker administration of justice.”
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)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry