As the battle for the victory of the 2023 presidential election shifts to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, News Band has stumbled on a judgement delivered by a late judge of the apex court, Justice Niki Tobi J.S.C.
In the referenced case, Justice Tobi noted, contrary to the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPC), on September 6, that cases must be handled on merit, not killed on technicalities.
He admitted that litigation blunders are human and inevitable and should be ignored if the application will do injustice to the case, rather than punish applicants “for mistakes they make in the litigation process, particularly when the mistakes are really mistakes”.
In the suit filed by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and two others versus Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and others, with file no: S.C. 288/2007, Niki Tobi J.S.C held thus:
“Assuming that learned Senior Advocate for the appellants is correct in the position he has taken on the conduct of the 4th to 808th respondents, should this court deal with the respondents in the way he has suggested? I do not think that the heavens will fall on the universe because the paragraph was not complied with. I take the non-compliance as an irregularity which is curable.
“And here, I entirely agree with counsel for the 4th to 808th respondents. It is not every non-compliance with rules of court that will vitiate the proceedings or do harm to the party in default. As a matter of our adjectival law, and by the state of the non-compliance rules, the courts will regard certain acts or conducts of non-compliance as mere irregularity which could be waived in the interest of justice.
“Again, as a matter of our adjectival law, non-compliance rules in their aggregate content point more to this trend than the reverse position of a punitive nature against the non-complying party. The state of the law is more in favour of forgiving non-compliance with rules of court, particularly, when such non-compliance, if waived, will be in the interest of justice.
“The basic principle of law is that it is the object of the court to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the litigation process, particularly when the mistakes are really mistakes. It is a known fact that blunders must take place in the litigation process and because blunders are inevitable, it is not fair, in appropriate cases, to make a party in the blunder to incur the wrath of the law at the expense of hearing the merits of the case.
“Rules of Court, which include here Practice Directions, are not intended to be ridiculously applied to a slavish point particularly if such an application will do injustice in the case.”
The former Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Justice Niki Tobi, who was known for his brilliance as a judge, died on Thursday, 19 June 2016, at the age of 75.
Another referenced case of interest is Eboh v. Akpotu (1968) 1 All NLR 220.
In the case in question, Coram George Baptist Ayodola Coker JSC said the Court of Appeal was trite when it held that “full opportunity should be given to parties in the interest of justice without due regard to technicalities”.
He regretted bygone days when some courts of law were doing “technical and abstract justice based on arid legalism” and welcomed courts of law that “do substantial justice”.
He expressed hope that “the days of the courts doing technical justice will not surface again”. PEPC proved him wrong!
Justice Coker said: “It is not every irregularity that can nullify entire proceedings and it may well be open to a party claiming by virtue of an irregularity to contend that such irregularity does not materially affect the merits of the case or engender a miscarriage of justice.
“Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed of course that is why they are made. There should be no argument about that. But there is an important qualification or caveat and it is that their obedience cannot or should not be slavish to the point that justice in the case is destroyed or thrown overboard. The greatest barometer, as far as the public is concerned, is whether at the end of the litigation process, justice has been done to the parties. (Emphasis ours.)
“Therefore, if in the course of doing justice, some harm is done to some procedural rule which hurts the rule, such as paragraph 7 of the Practice Directions, the court should be happy that it took that line of action in pursuance of justice. This court cannot myopically or blindly follow the Practice Directions and fall into a mirage and get physically and mentally absorbed or lost. Let that day not come.
“The mere fact that the application was brought by the 4th to 808th respondents to call additional witnesses is clear that a mistake was committed somewhere when only two witnesses, were put in the list of witnesses. Should this court punish the respondents for their mistake in such a big way of refusing them to call 213 witnesses? The answer is, No. That will be justice in inverted commas. That will be injustice. And I cannot sit in this court to do injustice.
“I am in entire agreement with the Court of Appeal when the court held that full opportunity should be given to parties in the interest of justice without due regard to technicalities. Gone are the days when courts of law were only concerned with doing technical and abstract justice based on arid legalism. We are now in days when courts of law do substantial justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances of the case. It is my hope that the days of the courts doing technical justice will not surface again.
“And what is more, election petitions are sui generis and should be treated in that domain or realm. If courts of law are bound to do substantial justice in ordinary civil matters how much less in an election petition, I should take the question to another level or layer and it is this.
“If tribunals are bound to do substantial justice in election petitions, how much less, a Presidential Election petition in which the whole country of Nigeria is one constituency. I do not think that the Court of Appeal was wrong in giving one extra kilometre to accommodate the 4th to 808th respondents. The court did a good job and I commend the Justices….”
—