TO SATISFY NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT BEFORE ADOPTION OF HIGH COURT PROCEDURE

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)

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?

LAWS ARE MADE TO BE OBEYED

In the interpretation of the above provision, it must be borne in mind that prima facie the Laws are made to be obeyed. All persons, authorities, agencies of government and government must obey the laws of the land. It is the degree of obedience accorded to the laws of the land that distinguishes the state of development in a given country. When laws are not obeyed, anarchy sets in.

— Oguntade, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

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?

APPROPRIATE TIME TO RAISE AN OBJECTION AS TO PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY

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

Was this dictum helpful?

RULES OF COURT ARE MADE FOR COURT’S BENEFIT, NOT OTHERWISE

The Rules of Court made to regulate the practice and procedure in the Supreme Court and indeed Rules made for the regulation of practice and procedure in the various courts in Nigeria have not been made for or to lie only in the statute books. They are made for the benefit of courts on the one hand and the legal practitioners and litigants in our courts on the other hand being guidelines for steps to be taken in any proceeding they must be followed.

– Obaseki, JSC. Ekpan v. Agunu (1986)

PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

TO SATISFY NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT BEFORE ADOPTION OF HIGH COURT PROCEDURE

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE & PROCEDURAL LAW

Was this dictum helpful?

LAWS ARE MADE TO BE OBEYED

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE RULES OF COURT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH

Was this dictum helpful?

APPROPRIATE TIME TO RAISE AN OBJECTION AS TO PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY

Was this dictum helpful?

RULES OF COURT ARE MADE FOR COURT’S BENEFIT, NOT OTHERWISE

Was this dictum helpful?