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