PASTINOR INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR v. BANK OF THE NORTH & ANOR (2014)LCN/7187(CA) In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria On Thursday, the 12th day of June, 2014 CA/K/28/2006 RATIO NECESSITIES TO OBJECT TO THE TRIAL OF A SUIT The rule has always been that a Defendant who has cause to object to the trial of a suit, has to file his defence (statement of defence) and raise the point(s) of law, he intends to rely on to fault the trial in the said defence. If he cannot wait for the said point of law to be determined along with his defence at the hearing of his case (defence), he is permitted to file a Motion on Notice, calling on the court to set down that point of law for hearing and determination at the time the case comes up for trial. See the case of Moyosore vs. Gov. of Kwara State (2012) 5 NWLR (pt. 1293) 242, where Order 26 Rule 2 of High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Kwara State (Similar to Order 24 Rule 2 of Kano State High Court Rules) was considered, and it was held: “That provision followed rule one of that Order which says:” No demurrer shall be allowed.” I believe this was meant to check or curtail the usual tendency by the defence to resort to bubby traps and ambushing to abort trial of matters on their merit, by relying on technicalities to deny the claimant the hearing of his case on the merit. And often times, the technical Justice which the Defendant secure by aborting the trial on merit becomes a mere temporary relief which only delayed the trial of the substantive matter, and when the technical Justice is set aside, on appeal, the parties go back to square one, after spending all the time and resources pursuing shadows. That is why the law would require such a point of law,…...