Rules Are Meant to Be Obeyed: Reasserting the Sanctity of Court Procedure and Fair Hearing in Nigeria

By P.L. Osakwe

■ Introduction

In the jurisprudential evolution of Nigeria’s legal system, few principles are more sacrosanct than the right to fair hearing and the obedience to rules of court. These are not mere technicalities or ceremonial rituals. Rather, they form the backbone of a just and functional legal order.

In the case of Tuoyo Holdings Ltd v. Niger-Benue Transport Co. Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 356) 800 at 809, paras H–A, the Court of Appeal reiterated a timeless truth: Rules of court are not made for fun but are made to be obeyed. This declaration reaffirms the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and underscores the consequences of procedural violations.

■ The Facts in Brief

While the full case history may be extensive, the court’s pronouncement at page 809 is critical in shaping our understanding of procedural justice. In that judgment, the Court held that to proceed with a matter in clear violation of the rules of court is not only a procedural error but a breach of the fundamental right to fair hearing, a direct affront to the principle of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard).

■ Key Judicial Pronouncement

“Rules of court are not made for fun but are made to be obeyed. To insist on carrying on with a proceeding in clear violation of the rules of court would amount to a breach of the fundamental right of fair hearing and the audi alteram partem rule.”

Tuoyo Holdings Ltd v. Niger-Benue Transport Co. Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 356) 800 at 809 H–A.

This profound statement reflects the judiciary’s recognition that form and substance are inseparable in the administration of justice. The rule of law demands fidelity to both.

■ Legal Significance

1. Rules of Court as Guardians of Justice
□ Rules of court exist to:
□ Streamline legal processes;
□ Prevent arbitrariness;
□ Protect litigants’ rights; and
□ Preserve judicial integrity.

By treating procedural rules as binding, the court ensures that each party is given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case, in line with Section 36(1) of the Constitution.

2. Fair Hearing Is a Fundamental Right

Fair hearing is not a luxury or a matter of discretion — it is a constitutional imperative. A proceeding that sidesteps procedure, even under the guise of expediency, runs the risk of violating this foundational right.

3. Audi Alteram Partem Cannot Be Sacrificed

The ancient principle of audi alteram partem underpins not just common law, but every modern legal system built on fairness. A court that disregards rules effectively silences one party and tilts the scales of justice.

■ Implications for Legal Practice

For lawyers, litigants, and judicial officers, this case is a warning and a guidepost:

■ Counsel must adhere strictly to procedural requirements, from filing timelines to service of processes.
□ Judges must not condone procedural violations, no matter how seemingly minor.
■ Litigants must be vigilant, ensuring their rights are not trampled under the guise of "judicial discretion."
□ The enforcement of procedure is not rigidity; it is justice in structured form.

□ Conclusion

Tuoyo Holdings Ltd v. Niger-Benue Transport Co. Ltd remains a landmark reminder that the legitimacy of the court system lies not only in its power to adjudicate but in its commitment to procedural integrity and the rule of law.

When rules of court are flouted, justice is not merely delayed, it is denied. Let no lawyer, judge, or litigant forget: rules are not made for fun, but to be obeyed.