ADEJUMO & ORS. V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE

• Pages: 134-138

134



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1970] N.S.C.C.

ADEJUMO & ORS. V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS

STATE

ADEJUMO AND ANOR

V

GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

UDOMA,



J.S.C.

24th April, 1970

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 321/1969

Practice and Procedure - Whether application to set aside for irregularity in High

Court should be by way of motion - Order 2 Rule 2 English Rules in White

Book 1967.

Evidence - Document - Objection to the use of document should be taken when

all facts are put before the court and not at the preliminary stage.

Action - Typographical error - Duty of counsel and Judge to put right

non-consequential matters order to bring up to state of hearing and to proceed

with hearing of the case.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an application to set aside an order for irregularity in the High Court

should be by way of motion?

2.

At what state of proceedings should any objections to the use of documents be

made?

3.

What is the duty of the court with respect to typographical errors in an affidavit.

FACTS:

This was an application for an order of

certiorari

made by counsel in the High

Court of Lagos. An affidavit was filed in support of the motion showing evidence

upon which the applicant relied. The application was rejected. The appellant ap-

pealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1.

The golden rule of practice is not to spring surprises on your adversary.

Applications to set aside for irregularity in the High Court should be made by

motion see order 2 Rule 2 English Rules in the white book 1967.

2.

Objection to a document being made use of in a case should be taken when

all the facts are put before the court and not at the preliminary stage. In this

case the trial Judge was in error in striking out Exhibit E recited in paragraph 6

of the affidavit before the court.

3.

The duty of couisel and Judge is to put right non- consequential matters in

order to bring a case up to the state of hearing and to proceed with the hearing

of the case. In this case the trial Judge should have invited argument after he

had been told it was a typographical error (since the mistake was not made in