SONUGA & ORS. V. ANADEIN & ORS.

• Pages: 70-72

70



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

and persons with whom the holder of the account has dealings learn through him

of the existence of the account, the banker may be treated as having made some

implied representation to those persons as to the holder's integrity or true identity.

We unhesitatingly reject that submission.

On the 2nd February, 1967, the appeal was allowed with costs, and these are



5

the reasons for our decision.

Appeal allowed.

SONUGA & ORS. V. ANADEIN & ORS.

J.S. SONUGA AND OTHERS



APPELLANTS

V

CHIEF KEHINDE ANADEIN AND OTHERS



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 28

6

/

1

965

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

10th March, 1967

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Writ of Summons and endorsement of



25

claim thereon - Defendant objecting after pleadings that endorsement irregular

- Implied waiver of irregularity - High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Or.2

r. 1,

Western Nigeria.

ISSUE:



30

1. Whether a defendant can raise objection to an irregularity he had himself

accepted or led the plaintiff to believe he had accepted and had acted on without

suffering any harm.

FACTS:

A judge of the High Court struck out an action before him on the ground that



35

the writ of summons failed to comply with Order 2, rule 1 of the High Court of

Western Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, Order 2 rule 1 of which states as follows:

"Every action shall be commenced by writ of summons which shall show the

cause of action and be endorsed with a statement of the nature of the claim

made, or of the relief or remedy required in the action."



40

The prescribed form of the writ shows the space for endorsement on the reverse

side

Instead of writing the endorsement on the reverse side of the prescribed form,

plaintiff's solicitors typed it on a piece of paper which he pasted to the back of the

form. The defendant did not object

in limine

to the writ but when the case came



45

up for hearing after pleadings had been filed they objected for the first time that

the writ was in breach of the above rule. The trial judge struck out the action.

HELD:

It was too late to raise the objection: a defendant cannot take advantage of an

irregularity he had himself accepted or led the plaintiff to believe he had accepted,



50

and had acted on without suffering any harm.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Dickson v. Law & Davidson

[1895] 2 Ch D. 72 L.T. 680.

10

15

20