LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Procedural Irregularity — Substantial Justice Not to Be Defeated by Mere Technicality
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appeal court such as the Supreme Court will not interfere with the decision of the trial court on the ground of procedural irregularity where the irregularity has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. A waiting member is not a member of the Court Martial, his absence is a mere irregularity and could not affect the decision. Substantial justice should not be allowed to be overcome by procedural irregularity.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Obisi v. Chief of Naval Staff (2004) NLC-1572002(SC) at pp. 25–26; Paras E–B.
"It is also the law that an appeal court such as the Supreme Court will not interfere with the decision of the trial court on the ground of procedural irregularity where the irregularity has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. A waiting member is not a member of the Court Martial, his absence is a mere irregularity and could not affect the decision of the Court Martial. Substantial justice should not be allowed to be overcome by procedural irregularity."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Procedural irregularities not causing miscarriage of justice do not warrant appellate interference. Substantial justice should not be defeated by mere technicalities. The principle applies to all appellate proceedings. The court must examine whether the irregularity actually prejudiced the aggrieved party. The rule promotes justice over formalism. The appellate court will not set aside a decision for harmless procedural errors.
