CIVIL PROCEDURE — Applications — Misjoinder of Prayers — Irregularity — Technicalities
Ratio Decidendi
Per Fabiyi, JSC, in Ajuwa & Anor v. SPDCN Ltd (2011) NLC-123-290-2007(SC) at p. 23; Paras A—D:
"To say the least, the wording of Prayer 1 can be described as inelegant. That is not to suggest that the two prayers to amend the notice of appeal and to raise fresh issues cannot be discerned therein. If they had been duly separated, the novel tag of 'misjoinder of prayers' would have been avoided. In my considered opinion, same is a mere irregularity that was rightly waived by the court below. After all, the Appellants have not shown how they have been prejudiced or misled. The technical objection is misconceived. The days of technicalities are gone. The current vogue is the doing of substantial justice to both sides in such a way that the main appeal will be heard and determined on its merit."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that inelegant wording or misjoinder of prayers is a mere irregularity that may be waived, especially where no prejudice is shown, as the days of technicalities are gone and substantial justice is the current vogue. The principle applies in procedural objections. It ensures that technicalities do not defeat justice. The principle reflects the preference for substantial justice. It prevents dismissal on technical grounds. The court must focus on the merits. The principle provides guidance on technicalities.