LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Case Management – Judge’s Recollection Cannot Supplement the Record
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Looking through the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules but cannot find any rule that relaxes the well-known practice of taking down minutes of important and relevant submissions made by parties; to construe it otherwise is to lay down a dangerous precedent as regards the recordings of minutes of proceedings in court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"I have looked through the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Oyo State but cannot lay hand on any rule that relaxes the well known practice of taking down minutes of important and relevant submissions made by parties... To construe it otherwise is to lay down a dangerous precedent as regards the recordings of minutes of proceedings in court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces Principle 449. No procedural rules permit: omitting recording of important submissions, judges supplementing record with recollection, or decisions based on unrecorded matters. “Well-known practice” of recording important submissions is mandatory, not optional. “Minutes” include: submissions of counsel, rulings, key testimony, procedural applications, and all material proceedings. Rules require recording to: enable appellate review, provide transparency, protect parties’ rights, and ensure decisions rest on verifiable bases. The “dangerous precedent” encompasses: encouraging lax recording practices, undermining procedural safeguards, creating unreviewable decisions, and disadvantaging appellants who cannot challenge unrecorded matters. Courts must: record important and relevant submissions, not rely on rules supposedly relaxing recording requirements (none exist), and maintain rigorous recording standards. The principle emphasizes: recording is not mere formality but essential safeguard, no shortcuts exist for recording requirements, and judges must ensure proper recording or face decisions being set aside for inability to review.