PRACTICE DIRECTION

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "By the combined effect of the definition of "enactment" which "means provision of any law or a subsidiary instrument" under section 277 (1) of the Constitution and section 27 of the Interpretation Act 1964, which provides "subsidiary instrument" means any order, rules, regulations, rules of Court or bye laws made either before or after the commencement of this Act in exercise of powers conferred by an Act" the Supreme Court Rules 1977 is an enactment while the Practice Directions do not qualify as such. Consequently, a practice direction has no force of law and cannot fetter a rule of Court such as Order 1 rule 5 and cannot tie the Court in the exercise of its discretion. Where there is a conflict between a rule of Court and a practise direction, the rule must prevail." - Per Bello, J.S.C., in University of Lagos & Anor. v. M.I Aigoro Suit No. S.C. 32/1984; (1984) 15 N.S.C.C. 745 at 755 - 756; (1984) 11 S.C. 152 at 171.

(2) "Now, I consider it pertinent to define "practice direction" which may be defined as a direction given by the appropriate authority stating the way and manner a particular rule of Court should be complied with, observed or obeyed. In all the common law jurisdictions there has always been an authority vested with the power to issue such directions. Thus, the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords in England issues directions on matters relating to the procedure of the House. See Procedure Direction (1970) 3 All E.R. 70 and (1971) 2 All E.R. 736. Order 34 rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 of England preserves the inherent powers of the Lord Chief Justice and the Vice-Chancellor as respects actions in the Queen’s Bench Division and the Chancery Division respectively to give directions on the matters specified by the said rule. Again, in the Queen’s Bench Division the Practice Master was empowered by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 section 104(2) (now repealed) to issue directions. The Practice Master’s powers have been preserved by Order 63 rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965. Now coming home, it may be observed that the provisions of our Supreme Court Rules 1977 Order 1 rules 8, 9, 10(1), 14 and 15 are clear and unambiguous. The rules in clear terms empower the Chief Justice to give directions on the matters stated by the rules which speak for themselves." - Per Bello, J.S.C., in University of Lagos & Anor. v. M.I. Aigoro Suit No. S.C. 32/1984; (1984) 15 N.S.C.C. 745 at...