When a practice (whether right or wrong) becomes repeatedly unquestioned, it invariably becomes standard produce or the norm, such that any slight deviations from same could attract some form of disapproved from due soon – maker who make not be unaware of its origin.

From time immemorial our ancestors in the profession had formed the habit of binning successive paragraphs of their affidavit with the word "That". Successive Genera of Nigerian Lawyers have passed on the practice which is still in vogue even up to the highest court of the land and endorsed by many erudite senior lawyers even up till this moment.

Surprisingly, as far back as Monday, 7th day of April 1997, the Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu has had an opportunity to address the propriety of such practice, albeit obiter, in the decision in Peter Nwabunike Eze V A. O. Okolonji reported in (1997) 7 NWLR (P6.513) 515 @ 533.

The facts of the case as well as the Appellant's proceeded preference are some what intriguing.

In that case, Mr. Eze a legal practitioner sued the Respondent the Assistant for defamation of the High Court allegedly publishing some defamatory words to one

In that word, Mr. Eze a legal practitioner sued the Respondent who was the Bramh Manager of First Bank, Enugu Branch for allegedly publishing some defamatory statements units the poon of Mr. Eze to one will lamatis.

Upon being served with the originating Mr. Okolonjo filed his statement of defence and arrared at paragraph 18 thus:

With Defendant will defund at the hearing of the suit that whatever action he look in respect of N190,000.00 cheque or N70,000.00 cheque of the plenty was strictly based on Banker relationship and in the course of his bus own as Assistant General Manager/ Manager of the First Bank of Nigeria Plc, Enugu Branch".

Following the averment above, Mr. Eze the Appellant brought an application at the High Court for Founder of First Bank as 2nd Defendant but the trial court dismissed has re-application which dismissal necessitated another application for stay of proceedings which was also dismissal, then provided for to the Court of Appeal with a similar application for stay of proceedings.

In dividing the application, although the issues canvassed only borhered on stay of proceedings and Founder of Patris, Niki Tobo, JCA (as he then was) atonsurely observed at page 533 paragraph C thus:

"Let the purse here to point out a unique as put of the affidavit in support, an aspect that I like very much. It is the conspicuous absule of the word "That". It is a sky which has hardened into a frudition for a paragraph in an affidavit to commence with the now over burdened word of "That". No affidavit is regarded as good without that word. Because of the regular us of the word, an affidavit without it looks "naked" have not on it, the required all thing".

I have asked myself several times the legal or factual significance or importance of the word. I have not got an appropriate answer. The tradition is menly a redic of colonnades. It is first of our legal.

History that are reminded English Law and that included the printer of preferring each paragraph of an affidavit by the word "That". I do not see any significance or importance of that notorious word "That". It at all it how any impart, it is the negative impact of a repetitive language and system which is not the but style of good writing. Since the word is of no legal significance in the procedural source of documentary evidence, deponents can drop to without any do. That will are a deponents time, hungry and money. It takes all the three, if not more to repeat the overburdened word in an affidavit. The applicant, Peter Nwabunike Eze, a legal practitioner and the deponent, has any communication in that regard.

From the foregoing obiter dictum of the erudite NWK Tobi, JCA (God has lordships soul), although not binding, this author is of the respectful view but the advice embedded therein, is golden as it sucks to improve our legal draflime at the upremise of reputation words in our affidavit.

CASES

1. Letter proof that it was properly addressed and postal is primefare violence that its was dedored to the addresses National Employer mutual General his were Asso. LSc V Ladun Martina (1969) LPELR.
2. Motion – can be further together – Charles Omonua V Margaret Omonua (2014) LPELR) – 22439(CA)
3. Preliminary application -
4. Appeal is a constitutional right – count be takes away by rules of court. Yekini Afosi state (2008) 37 NQU (p6.11) 1445, LPELR, Semiu Afolabi V State (2013) 13 NWLR (pt. 1371) 292.
5. Application - unmoved application cannot be resolved suo note – Peak Merchant Bank V CBN (2017) LPBWR.
6. Motion -
7. Affidavit of service – will not be regulated as proof if deflective and vague – Emerald Engineering Surus V intercontinental Bank (2010) LPEWR – 19782(CA).
8. Affidavit of serve – must not be kept away to be produced at a later stage – Solute General Bank Nig Ltd V John Adebayo Adewumi (2003) LPELR – 3081(sc).
9. Affidavit of service – no need to insist on it when the person serve or the court – Okesuji V Lawal (1991) LPELR – 2447 (sc) cannot be a better proof than appearance.
10. Appeal – naming the Judge is not a requirement of law – AMON V Resort Internal Ltd (20117) LPEWR – 43049(CA).
11. Signing – Tick – today Law – LASACO (2010) LPBLR – 41260 (CA)

DICTIONARY

  1. Particular section of the community – J. C Egbunu V the Amalgamated press y Nig Ltd (1967) LPER – 25353(sc).

JUDGES

  1. Adamson
  2. Lawal
  3. Oshodi
  4. Bassa
  5. Animahun
  6. CJ
  7. Admin Judges
  8. Jose
  9. Ogala
  10. Opesanwo
  11. Faji
  12. Kanyin
  13. Wole Olamipokun
  14. My public Interest matter
  15. Public Interest judgment

CASES

  1. Police – SARS and kidnapping are not agents of state Kolo V Nogiwu Police Force (2016) LABL – 43635 (CA).
  2. Police postal to fit is an agent of FG.
  3. Breach of contract – of established whether ontanfront or otherwise damages follows – National Investment $ Prop. Co Ltd V the Thompson organization Ltd (1969) LPELR – sc
  4. Tenant – couble for control of domestic water supply – Hogan V Oyugyin (1971) (LPSW)
  5. Abuse – a dew cuse of abuse is where an emoting curse is duplicate – Eze V Okonji (1997) 7 NWLR (p6.513) @530.
  6. Appeal – frul judge can consider whether appeal is famolous trab $ arguable appeal - Eze V Okonji (1997) 7 NWLR (p6. 513) 528.
  7. Possession – a person can be in possession brought bill party such as servant, agent, even tenant Fadimehin V Lawson (2014) LPER.
  8. Tenant – can only be in possession where possession remains in landlord.
  9. Firm – Legal practitioners can sue in the name of their firm.
  10. FHR – artposal pion will not be entitled to damages – Heritage Bank V SOS Wireless Ltd (2018) LPELR – 46571 (CA).
  11. FHR – artposal person can flee for FHR Okechukwu – Efu (2014) LPELR.
  12. Written address – dumed adopted – Maidabo V State (2016) LPEIP – 40245 (CA).
  13. Evidence – evaluation enfold which more than I believe – or "I do not believe" – Emirate Air V Mekwunye.
  14. Agency – existence of agency relationship can't deput cause of action. M.V. Breughed V Mandivest Ltd (
  15. Constitution – provisions in a condition are of equal strength and constitutionality no procession is unfair to the other and for – INDL V Balarabe Musa (2003) LPEIR – 24927 (CA).
  16. Judowd prudent does not involve exercise of duration, it is mandatory Shaltina V Goni (2011) LPEIR - 417 (SC).
  17. Volus standi is point of law – Dala V Ayodele (2014) LPEIR.
  18. Name – No name has been attended to exclusively belong to any person – Banjoko – V Ogunlaju (2013 LPEIR – 201373 (CA).
  19. Bailf – the one who served does not have to be the one who deposes – Chief of Naval Staff V Edeh (2015) LPEIR.
  20. Garnishee – were service of order nisi CBN – Nwuyanwu & Sons enterprises Nig Ltd (2014) LPEIR – 22745 (CA).
  21. Assault
  22. Ejection – forceful ejection amounts to assault – Bello V Doris (2016) LPEIR – 41298 (un).
  23. Magistrate can give oral judgment Okoruwa V the State (1975) LPEIR – 2498(sc)
  24. Rules of court is not statutory provision Peter Obi V INEL (2008) LPELR – 2067(sc).
  25. Statement of degree filled out of from is not a nullity but avoidable – Nishizawa Ltd V Strichand Jathand (1984) LPELR – 2037(Sc).
MATTER SUBJECT MATTER COURT JUDGEMENT DATE
Suit No
  1. BABALOLA
    V
    ATTONEY GENERAL FEDER
 Right of appeal under section ____ COURT OF APPEAL
1
Suit No.
  1. OLUMIDE BABALOLA
    V
    IKEJA LOCAL GOVT AREAR
 Constitutionality of unified Local Government Marriage Certificate HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
Suit No.
  1. CLEMENT OSEMENE
    V
    GURANTY TRUST BANK
 Constitutionality of Bankers Oder Act HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
  1. OLUMIDE BABALOLA
    V
    USIEF REGISTRAR
 Computation of year of call of legal prufitran FEDERAL HIGH COURT ABUJA
  1. OLUMIDE BABALOLA
    V
    CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION
 Constitutionality of salary NBA'S consent before registering assolvation of lawyer FEDERAL HIGH COURT LAGOS

PUBLIC INTEREST MATTERS

MATTER SUBJECT MATTER COURT STATUS
Suit No.
  1. DIGITAL RIGHT LAWYERS INITIATIVE
    V
    CBNTRAL BANK OF NIGERIAN
 Violatrun of the Nigeria Data Prolutran Regulation FEDERAL HIGH COURT
Suit No.
  1. DIGITAL RIGHTS LAWYER
    V
    NATIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DBV AGBNY
 Violatra of NDPR FEDERAL HIGH COURT
Suit No.
  1. DIGITAL RIGHTS LAWYER
    V
    NIGERIAN COMMUNICATION COMMISSION
 Violatra of NDPP FEDERAL HIGH COURT
DRL I
V
PRESIDENT		 Interpretation the action 58 in respect of assurt to the Digital Rights Bvu FEDERAL HIGH COURT ABUJA
DRL
V
NA83		 Interpretation section 58 FEDERAL HIGH COURT ABUJA

PRELIMARY OBJECTION

GROUNDS

  1. J. W. Dony esq is not sound an record cant be heard without filling
  2. Post dated process
  3. Order 35 ____
  4. Comp-tempt proceedings ought to be served personally
  5. The process is invalidly signed – SLB

TO ASSERTION TENANCY

  1. Rent 2
  2. Term 2
  3. Evidence 2
  4. Size of space
  5. New terms
  6. Time limit
  7. Full names
  8. Contents
  9. Business
  10. When they enter
  11. Prepare forms for them and let them fill

TENANCY FORM

ACB Building, Broad Street, Lagos

Name:

Phone Number:

Previous Rent:

Term (From when till when)

Evidence of past payment:

Type of Business:

Guarantor:

Content Address:

Passport Photographs:

CASES

  1. Admitted fuit – when what is admitted is a conclusion of law. It has no binding effect. Bajowa V FRN (2016) LPEIR – 45229 (CA).
  2. Record of appeal – where no ruled reoA no record can be filed – Taye Gamba V Iyabo Ummuani (2017) LPEIR – 9841(CA).
  3. Record of appeal – counsil now compile Bimsilors – Edem V Akamkpa Local Government (1999) LPEUR – 10076 (CA)
  4. Witness – recall of a wiles – Okonkwo Nwaoshai (2016) LPEUR – 41418(CA)
  5. Shares – money deposited for shares will altrate interest but once invested it can only be attrat profit interest – unifing

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.