AJIKE V. MOLADUN

• Pages: 264-266

264



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

AJIKE V. MOLADUN

5

BADERINWA AJIKE

V

LIMOTA MOLADUN

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

30th November, 1967

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 55

6

/

1

965

10

15

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Nullity - Procedural defect not one

extrinsic to the adjudication - Whether decision a nullity

Appeal - Appeals from Customary Courts - Evidence not recorded till another

day, but no miscarriage of justice - Defect not fatal to proceedings

Legislation - Customary Courts Law, Section 55 (W.N.) - Customary Court Rules

(W.N.) 0.10,r.4.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the wrongful reception of evidence is sufficient ground to declare

proceedings in a Customary Court a nullity in view of the provision of section

55 of the Customary Court Law.



30

2.

What must be established before a defect in proceedings can render such

proceedings a nullity?

FACTS:

This involved a dispute over land being heard in the customary court. The

court visited the land in dispute but, in breach of 0.10,r.4 of the Customary Court



35

Rules, did not record the evidence taken there until some days later. The Custom-

ary Court of Appeal was of the view that this breach made the proceedings a null-

ity and that section 55 of the Customary Court Law did not apply.

Section 55 of the Customary Court Law provides that a defect in procedure is

not by itself reason for declaring customary court proceedings void but that the



40

appeal court shall decide all matters according to substantial justice and without

undue regard to technicalities.

The plaintiff appealed against the decision of the Customary Court of Appeal

to the High Court and the High Court applying section 55 of the Law restored the

judgment of the Customary Court of trial. The defendant appealed against this



45

decision, counsel arguing on his behalf that the trial was a nullity and also that there

is a risk of some inaccuracy in such a record which might have affected the trial

court's mind. In fact, the evidence in question did not weigh on the dispute at all.

HELD:

1. That even though the trial Judge wrongfully received the evidence taken at the



50

inspection as evidence, the evidence did not affect the mind of the trial court

in coming to a decision and as such the Customary Court of Appeal was wrong

to have held that the wrongful reception made the proceedings a nullity in view

20

25