LEGAL PRINCIPLE: COURT — Native Court — Procedure — Substance over Form — Approach of Appellate Courts
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In reviewing Native Court proceedings, substance over form is important; practice and procedure of Native Courts differ from High Courts, but should not be condemned unless prejudicial to fair trial and likely to cause miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Nnamani, JSC, in Kuusu v. Udom (1990) NLC-1741986(SC) at pp. 16–18; Paras D–A.
"In many cases dealing with visits to locus in quo for instance, appellate Courts have been unwilling to upset the decisions of Native Courts because one procedural error or the other has been made. It is substance not form that is of importance when one has to examine those proceedings. The practice and procedure of native courts do not agree with those of High Courts which adopt the English procedure, but such practice and procedure should not be condemned on that account unless they are found to be prejudicial to a fair trial and likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts reviewing Native Court (Area Court) proceedings must focus on substance, not form. Procedural differences from High Courts are not grounds for reversal. The decision should not be condemned unless the procedure was prejudicial and likely to cause a miscarriage of justice. The principle recognises the informal nature of customary courts. The court will not impose strict common law procedural standards. The appellate court should uphold the decision if substantial justice was done. The rule applies to visits to locus in quo, taking of evidence, and other procedures. The party challenging the decision must show actual prejudice, not mere irregularity. The principle promotes finality and respect for customary adjudication.