PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The appointment, being void, would plaintiff's acquiescence clothe it with validity? I rather think not.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ogundare, JSC, in Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) NLC-1261995(SC) at p. 29; Paras A–B.
"The appointment, being void, would plaintiff's acquiescence clothe it with validity? I rather think not."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Acquiescence cannot validate an act that is void ab initio. Void acts are legal nullities—they cannot be cured by consent, delay, or failure to object. While mere irregularities may be waived, acts that are fundamentally void (such as those done without constitutional authority or jurisdiction) remain invalid regardless of acquiescence. This distinction prevents parties from circumventing legal requirements by claiming that others failed to object promptly. Voidness goes to the root of the act’s validity and cannot be retroactively validated by conduct.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE