LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Fundamental Irregularity – Proceedings in Chambers for Dissolution of Marriage – Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
We regard the irregularity as being fundamental, which touches the legality of the whole proceedings including the judgment and the incidental orders made thereafter. We therefore hold that all that happened in the Judge's chambers did not constitute a regular hearing of an action in court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC, quoting Oviasu v. Oviasu (1973) 11 S.C. 315, in Menakaya v. Menakaya (2001) NLC-1691996(SC) at p. 12; Paras D–E.
"We regard the irregularity as being fundamental, which touches the legality of the whole proceedings including the judgment and the incidental orders made thereafter. We therefore hold that all that happened in the Judge's chambers did not constitute a regular hearing of an action in court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Hearing a marriage dissolution petition in chambers (instead of open court) is a fundamental irregularity affecting the legality of all proceedings—judgment and incidental orders. Such proceedings do not constitute a regular hearing of an action in court. The defect is not merely procedural; it goes to the validity of the entire process. The requirement of open court is mandatory, not directory. Proceeding in chambers violates statutory command and public policy. The resulting judgment is a nullity. The irregularity cannot be cured by consent or waiver. The principle protects open justice and ensures judicial proceedings are conducted in public view. The nullity extends to all orders made in the irregular proceedings.