UNIT 24 - FORMAL VALIDITY AND PROCEDURAL DEFECTS IN STATUTORY MARRIAGE

TOPIC OF THE DAY

- MEANING OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

- NATURE OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

- TYPES OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

- LEGAL EFFECTS OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

- INTERPRETATION OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

- APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

Meaning of Procedural Defects

Procedural defects refer to errors, mistakes, or omissions that occur during the legal process. These defects typically do not affect the substantive rights or merits of a case but concern the manner in which the case is handled through the legal system. Procedural defects can arise at any stage of litigation, from the filing of a case to the final judgment.

Nature of Procedural Defects

Procedural defects are technical in nature and relate to the processes and methods by which legal matters are brought before the court and conducted. These defects can significantly impact the administration of justice, as they may delay proceedings, cause additional costs, or lead to the dismissal of cases. While some procedural defects can be cured or rectified, others may be fatal to the continuation of the case.

Types of Procedural Defects

Procedural defects can be categorized into various types:

1.Jurisdictional Defects: These are errors relating to the court's authority to hear a case. For instance, if a case is filed in the wrong court or tribunal. See the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 where the Supreme Court held that a court is competent when it is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualification of its members, the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and the case comes before it in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

2.Service of Process Defects: These are issues arising from improper or lack of service of legal documents to parties involved in a case. See the case of Skenconsult v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6 where the Supreme Court held that failure to serve a writ of summons on the defendant as required by law is a fundamental defect that renders the entire proceedings a nullity.

3.Non-compliance with Court Rules: This happens if there is failure to adhere to procedural rules set by the court, such as filing deadlines, form requirements, or procedural steps. See the case of Nwankwo v. Nwankwo (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 226) 740 where the Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of complying with procedural rules, stating that non-compliance could lead to the dismissal of an action.

4.Improper Pleadings: These are errors or omissions in the legal documents submitted to the court, such as incorrect or insufficient details in a complaint or petition. See the case of Nigerian Bottling Co. Ltd v. Constance (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 259 where the court held that pleadings must be precise and provide sufficient details to inform the other party of the case they have to meet.

5.Non-compliance with Statutory Provisions: This happens when there is a failure to follow specific procedural requirements set out in legislation. See the case of Olu of Warri v. Kperegbeyi (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 339) 416 where the court held that non-compliance with statutory provisions governing procedures can invalidate proceedings.

6.Irregularity in Court Orders or Judgments: These are errors in the drafting, issuance, or execution of court orders or judgments. See the case of Edukugbo v. Funchal (Nig) Ltd (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 334) 678 where the court held that a judgment that does not comply with procedural requirements may be set aside.

Legal Effects of Procedural Defects

The legal effects of procedural defects vary depending on the type and severity of the defect. The consequences can include:

1.Dismissal of the Case: This happens when there is a serious procedural defects, such as lack of jurisdiction, it can result in the outright dismissal of the case. See the case of Eboh v. Akpotu (1968) 1 All NLR 220 where the Supreme Court held that a court must dismiss a case if it lacks jurisdiction.

2.Striking Out of Pleadings: This is where defective pleadings can be struck out, requiring the affected party to amend and refile them. See the case of Shell Petroleum Development Company v. Maxon (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 719) 541 where the court emphasized that defective pleadings must be struck out to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

3.Adjournment of Proceedings: This is where the court may adjourn proceedings to allow for the rectification of minor procedural defects. See the case of Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 806 where the court held that adjournments may be granted to correct minor procedural defects.

4.Setting Aside of Orders or Judgments: This happens when orders or judgments obtained through significant procedural defects may be set aside. See the case of Skenconsult v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6 where the court held that any order or judgment obtained without proper service is a nullity and must be set aside.

Interpretation of Procedural Defects

Courts interpret procedural defects in the context of ensuring justice and fairness. The key principles in interpreting procedural defects include:

1.Substantial Justice over Technicalities: This is when courts often prioritize substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural rules. Minor defects that do not affect the merits of the case or cause injustice may be overlooked. See the case of Kotoye v. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 357) 414 where the court held that substantial justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities.

2.Curable vs. Fatal Defects: These are some procedural defects which are considered curable and can be rectified through amendments or procedural motions, while others are fatal and cannot be remedied. See the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 where the court distinguished between curable defects and those that are fatal to the proceedings.

3.Provisions of Law: This is where specific provisions of applicable laws and rules guide the interpretation and handling of procedural defects. See the Civil Procedure Rules of various states, High Court Rules, Federal High Court Rules.

Application of Procedural Defects

The application of procedural defects involves identifying, addressing, and rectifying such defects in legal proceedings. Key aspects include:

1.Raising Procedural Defects: This is when parties can raise procedural defects at any stage of the proceedings, usually through preliminary objections or motions. See the case of Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 where the court held that procedural defects should be raised as early as possible to avoid unnecessary delays.

2.Court's Discretion: This is where courts have the discretion to determine the impact of procedural defects and decide whether to permit rectification or impose sanctions. See the case of Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (1982) 1 All NLR 1 where the court emphasized the discretionary power of judges in handling procedural defects.

3.Compliance with Rectification Orders: This is where parties are expected to comply with court orders to rectify procedural defects within specified timeframes to avoid further sanctions or dismissal. See the case of Chief Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172 where the court held that failure to comply with rectification orders could result in dismissal of the case.