ALHAJI MOHAMMED MAIYAKI ALI v. NIGERIAN DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
(2014)LCN/6860(CA)
RATIO
CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE RULES OF COURT IN THE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE
This issue is a mere storm in a teacup, and is easily resolved because the law is quite clear on the subject – “Rules of court are rules of procedure. They do not by themselves and of themselves alone confer jurisdiction” – per Oputa, JSC in Clement V. Iwuanyanwu (1989) 3 NMLR (Pt. 107) 39 at 50. See also Afribank v. Akwara (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.974) 619 SC, where Ogbuagu, JSC, clearly said –
“Rules of Court are not as sacrosanct as statutory provisions of law. A rule of Court cannot confer jurisdiction. It only regulates the practice of the Court in the exercise of a power derived aliunde (from another source or from elsewhere) and does not confer power – Rules of Court, cannot override, Statutory provisions of the law”.
It is settled that a pre-trial conference is an extraordinary procedure before trial where the parties are encouraged to resolve the dispute or settle the case – see MTN Nigeria Communications Ltd. v. Wigatap Trade and Investment Ltd. (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1944) 276 and Ikeyi v. Crown Realities Plc. (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 114 where Rhodes-Vivour, JCA (as he then was) added that – “The policy under Order 25 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 is designed to save precious judicial time, expense involved in a full blown trial, and avoid unnecessary litigation when there are no longer any live issues after a successful pre-trial conference. Successful pre-trial conference reduces drastically a Judge’s docket, thereby hopefully ensuring speedy conclusion of contested cases”.
In this case, I will not venture to say that the lower court was right to disregard Order 25 Rule 4 of the said Civil Procedure Rules, which stipulates that a pretrial conference SHALL be completed within 3 months of its commencement, unless extended by the Chief Judge; after all, Rules of court must be obeyed….
But a court has discretion at the pre-trial stage to make decisions to ensure the speedy disposal of a case before it, and the paramount consideration is justice – see UTC v. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (pt. 103) 244 SC, wherein it was held- “Rules of procedure are made for the convenience and orderly hearing of cases in court. They are made to help the cause of justice and not to defeat justice. The rules are, therefore, aids to the Court and not Masters of the Court. For courts to read rules in the absolute without recourse to the justice of the case – will be making the court slavish to the Rules. This certainly is not the raison d’etre of Rules of Court”. [Per Belgore, JSC (as he then was)] Every Judge holds the proverbial scale of Justice in his hands that is not visible to anyone in court, but he knows fully well that he has to balance the scales to ensure justice for the claimant and justice for the Defendant, and in doing so, he has to exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously. It is trite law that the exercise of discretion by a lower court would not ordinarily be interfered with unless the appellate court is satisfied that the discretion was not so exercised. Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A
