Sam Atoe & Company

Call Directions Contact the business

Sam Atoe & Company Quest for justice, equity, fairness, democratic principles, societal and social well-being, rule of Law. A page for research excellence and effectiveness.

23/09/2026

Proper Citation of Constitution/Statute even after amendment.

Dear colleagues,

It has become necessary to draw our attention to this matter. Citation and referencing in any legal system is normally inspired by Legal academics. This is what NALT has assumed responsibility for by the citation guidelines. We may have noticed the 'universality' (in Nigeria) of the error of citing the Constitution and even statutes and adding 'as amended'. As recently as July 2026 the Chief Justice of Nigeria made the mistake. Our students, of course, can't but follow. Well, we have the responsibility to correct the error.
1.Logically amendment is like taking a sick person, including orthopaedic patient, to hospital. When the person is cured he is not described as 'Chinwo as cured'. He is still Chinwo.
2.The Constitution of Nigeria, which contemplates its amendment and provided for it s.9, in s. 319 is explicit as to how it should be cited: 'This Constitution may be cited as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999'.
3.Section 4 of the Interpretation Act provides that when any statute had been amended reference to that statute includes the amendment. That is what is it means when the phrase 'as amended' is used.
4.Going by Precedent, the Constitution of the USA, which like ours is presidential, has been amended for over 27 times. Yet it is simply referred to as the 'Constitution of the United States'. However, if a particular amendment is referred to you hear of 1st or 14th Amendment just in Nigeria we have 3rd or 5th Alteration'.
This generation of teachers is responsible to and for this generation of students and graduates. I plead that we should be firm to stop this anomaly, or pathology as someone elsewhere put it. I shall also post it in many academic platforms. Feel free to share as wide as possible, even Judiciary platforms.

C.A.J. Chinwo, Ph.D,
Ass. Prof., RSU

OKON v. IDRISIMA GLOBAL CONCEPTS LTD & ORSAbuja Judicial division)On Tuesday, February 16, 2016Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/1216/1...
21/09/2026

OKON v. IDRISIMA GLOBAL CONCEPTS LTD & ORS
Abuja Judicial division)
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/1216/13(R2)

ISSUE
EVIDENCE - AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE
- Effect of filing a counter affidavit without a written address

PRINCIPLE
"It is instructive to note that, the Plaintiff did not file written address accompanying his counter affidavit. The implication in law is that the said counter affidavit is incompetent. It is liable to be struck out. Accordingly it is hereby struck out."

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
21/09/26

ELEMA v. IGHODARO & ORS(2025) LPELR-81642(CA)ISSUEPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPLICATION(S)/MOTION(S)- Effect of failure t...
21/09/2026

ELEMA v. IGHODARO & ORS
(2025) LPELR-81642(CA)

ISSUE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPLICATION(S)/MOTION(S)
- Effect of failure to file a written address in support of an application in the Court of Appeal

PRINCIPLE
"The motion on notice was not accompanied by a written address as provided by Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 which provides, inter alia, thus: "Every application to the Court shall be by notice of motion, stating the Rule under which it is brought the grounds for the reliefs sought and shall be supported by an affidavit and a written address..." (Underline for emphasis). This application is not supported by a written address contrary to Order 6 Rule 1 (Supra) thus running foul of the Rules of this Court. This failure to support the motion on notice with written address which is mandatory (shall) is fatal to the competence of the application. Having pointed out the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of filing an application as provided by the Rules of this Court 2021, it is needless to delve into considering the merit of this application as doing so would amount to putting something on nothing and expect it to stand. In the circumstance, this application is struck out for failure to comply with Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021."
Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, JCA (Pp 13 - 13 Paras A - F)

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
21/09/26

ERO & ORS v. AIMUFUA & ORS(2022) LPELR-58256(CA)EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT A WRITTEN ADDRESS JAMES G...
21/09/2026

ERO & ORS v. AIMUFUA & ORS
(2022) LPELR-58256(CA)

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT A WRITTEN ADDRESS

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.
I am not unaware of the modern trend in which Courts are actively encouraged to deal with substance rather than technicality. Conscious of this fact, I would have closed my eyes to counsel’s failure to file a distinct address in support of the motion if counsel had in his process segmented his written address filed on 31/3/22, attached to applicants’ further and better affidavit into two – one segment to deal with arguments in support of the application, and the second segment, devoted to their reply to the new issues raised in the respondents’ written address. This is the lowest level the Court would have descended to in order to do substantial justice. The failure to meet this lowest standard raises an issue which stares me in the face, that is, that the applicants proffered no argument in support of their application. Should the Court therefore descend into the arena of dispute to proffer arguments for the applicants? Not all, doing so in my mind will amount to raising issues suo moto, which in law requires that the parties to be affected are heard – See State v. Ibrahim & Ors. (2014) LPELR–23468 (CA) p. 2 paras A–C, Okoro v. Okoro & Anor (1998) LPELR–6403 (CA) pp. 14–15 paras B–A, Jiwul v. Dimlong (2002) LPELR–7083 (CA) p. 18 paras B–D. Therefore, having failed to file a written address in support of their application as directed by the Court, same is hereby incompetent.

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
21/09/26

UBA PLC v. B. FRANK SUNNY STAR INT'L LTD(2025) LPELR-81519(CA)ISSUEEVIDENCE - AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE- Effect of a further af...
21/09/2026

UBA PLC v. B. FRANK SUNNY STAR INT'L LTD
(2025) LPELR-81519(CA)

ISSUE
EVIDENCE - AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE
- Effect of a further affidavit which is a rehash of the averments contained in the affidavit

PRINCIPLE
"Before going into the meat of this Application, I will like to address the further affidavit filed by the Applicant on the 6th day of February, 2025. I find that there is no reply on point of law to the Counter affidavit and written address filed by the Respondent to this Application. The further affidavit as rightly stated supra was a rehash of the averments in the affidavit in support of the motion except the addition that the Applicant has attached a new proposed Notice of Appeal. There is no Reply address to speak to further affidavit. This is in my humble view flout the provision of Order 6 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules of this Court it is thus incompetent and should be discountenanced and hereby struck out for being incompetent."
Per OYEJOJU OYEBIOLA OYEWUMI, JCA (Pp 6 - 6 Paras B - E)

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
21/09/26

14/09/2026

ADEGORIOLU & ORS v. SULE & ANOR
(2026) LPELR-83645(CA)

ISSUE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - COURT PROCESS(ES) - Whether a Court can make use of or take judicial notice of process(es) that was withdrawn and struck out

PRINCIPLE
"The Appellant's counsel has correctly stated the position of the law on the effect of struck out process. A process such as the amended consequential statement of claim, which was struck out on 7/1/2014 as shown in the proceedings at page 206 of the record has no light or life and cannot be referred to by the Court because it has become worthless and lifeless from the day it was withdrawn and struck out."
Per EBIOWEI TOBI, JCA (Pp 26 - 26 Paras B - D)

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
14/09/26

14/09/2026

AEROBELL NIG LTD v. N.D.I.C
(2017) LPELR-51197(CA)

ISSUE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER - JUDGMENT OF COURT - Whether it is proper for a Court to make reference to a process that has been struck out in his judgment

PRINCIPLE
"I agree completely with the Appellant that the learned trial Judge was wrong to have made any reference to the withdrawn and struck out Counter-Affidavit. The effect of withdrawing and consequent striking out of the process is that the process would be as if it was never filed at all. See Enoch v Akpan (2011) LPELR-4051(CA). The learned trial Judge ought not to have made any reference to a non-existent process."
Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JCA (Pp 37 - 37 Paras D - F)

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
14/09/26

14/09/2026

OGOLO & ORS v. FUBARA & ORS
(2003) LPELR-2310(SC)

ISSUE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - LEGAL REPRESENTATION
- Whether co-plaintiffs must retain the services of the Counsel to the original plaintiff

PRINCIPLE
"Where parties have same or similar interest in a matter, they can apply to join as co-plaintiffs and that is proper in our adjectival law. Accordingly, I do not see anything wrong for the 2nd set of plaintiffs to join this suit. The 2nd set of plaintiffs can decide to have the same Counsel with the 1st set of plaintiffs if they so wish I do not see anything wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong for the 2nd set of plaintiffs to retain the services of different Counsel, if they so wish. It is not my understanding of the decision in Fadayomi v. Sadipe (supra) that the co-plaintiffs must retain the same counsel with the original plaintiffs. That will be wrong because parties in litigation have the right to brief counsel of their own choice. The important aspect is that the plaintiffs in the matter (original and co-plaintiffs) must present a common front and a common interest in the presentation of their claims or reliefs. They must, on no account, present opposing interests or opposing claims or reliefs." Per NIKI TOBI, JSC (Pp 33 - 34 Paras E - C)

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
12/09/26

14/09/2026

PRE-ELECTION
AMENDMENT - TIMEFRAME
Whether amendment can be granted outside the 14 days constitutional window

In pre-election matters, the Supreme Court in Wike & Anor v. Chinda & Anor (2019) LPELR-59753(SC) and the Court of Appeal in ADC v. INEC (2022) LPELR-59080(CA) emphasize that the 'unique special nature' of election-related litigation precludes such amendments after the 14-day window. While Sami v. APC & Ors (2019) LPELR-48045(CA) noted arguments that practice directions might differ, the prevailing view is that the constitutional timeline is the ultimate 'Practice Direction' that cannot be toyed with.

Recent jurisprudence has solidified the 'no-extension' rule for pre-election matters. In ADC v. INEC (2022) LPELR-59080(CA), the Court of Appeal held that a notice of appeal misstating the date of judgment (thereby appealing a non-existent decision) could not be amended after the time elapsed because the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Directions 2022 and the sui generis nature of the case forbid extensions. Similarly, Umara v. Idriss & Ors (2022) LPELR-59337(CA) reaffirmed that Section 285(11) of the Constitution is absolute; because the Constitution is the grundnorm, no court has the power to vary the 14-day window. Even more recently, Okuru v. Ogube & Ors (2026) LPELR-83569(CA) acknowledged that while a wrong heading is generally an amendable irregularity, it must be corrected with leave of court, which in pre-election contexts is restricted by the Wike v. Chinda precedent.

The principle that pre-election timelines are immutable is strongly supported and has seen no erosion. The Supreme Court in Wike & Anor v. Chinda & Anor (2019) LPELR-59753(SC) explicitly distinguished earlier liberal authorities like Surakatu v. Nigeria Housing Development Society, noting they do not apply to the time-sensitive regime of election matters. The trajectory of the law shows a shift from 'substantial justice' (which allowed liberal amendments in cases like Afribank (Nig) Plc v. Medical Consultant Services Ltd (2010) LPELR-9035(CA)) toward 'strict constitutional compliance' in pre-election litigation.

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
08/09/26

14/09/2026

WIKE & ANOR v. CHINDA & ANOR
(2019) LPELR-59753(SC)

Per OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, JSC:

"However, it must be noted that the instant case is unlike other civil or criminal cases. Ordinarily, in other civil and criminal matters technically defective process, such as wrongly headed Notice of Appeal can be properly amended with the leave of Court, within the time to file the Notice of Appeal. But the instant case is unlike any other ordinary civil or criminal matter. It is sui generis and of special nature. It is time bound. ...

"In APC & Anor vs. PDP & Anor (unreported) appeal No. SC.295/2019 delivered on 11/4/2019, the names of certain numbers of the respondents were left out from the Notice of Appeal as the names appeared on the processes before the Court below. The appellant sought to amend the said Notice of Appeal to bring in the left out names of the respondents. The application was refused and the appeal was struck out. Similarly, in Barrister Abdulmalik Mohammed v. Hon. Garba & Ors (unreported) appeal No. SC.501/2019 delivered on 11th June, 2019 the appellant had wrongly sought reliefs "from the Court of Appeal "instead of" reliefs sought "from the Supreme Court." These defects were noticed by the parties after the expiration of the prescribed time to file the appeal and indeed at the hearing of the appeals. Amendment sought was refused and the appeal was struck out. Counsel are expected to be more diligent in the way they handle cases of their clients, in particular, sui generis cases, to prevent this avoidable, embarrassing and costly mistakes in the processes filed in Court....

"I am of the firm view that the Court below ought not to have countenanced the application for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal at the time the 1st respondent brought the application, even where the respondents to the application did not object. It has long been settled and it is clear that, "a Court is not only entitled but bound to put an end to proceedings if at any stage and by any means it becomes manifest that they are incompetent. It can do so on its own initiative, even though the parties have consented to the irregularity, because mere acquiescence does not give jurisdiction". See; Westminister Bank Ltd. & Anor v. Edwards' & Anor (1942) AC 529 at 536; Per Lord Wright; Western Steel Works Ltd & Anor v. Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria & Anor (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.30) 617 at 627."

Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
08/09/26

Address

148, Ikpoba Slope
Bénin

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 17:00
Thursday 08:00 - 17:00
Friday 08:00 - 17:00

Telephone

08066262612

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Sam Atoe & Company posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Sam Atoe & Company:

Shortcuts

Share

Category