Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ENUGU BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON JUSTICE AUWAL IBRAHIM DATE 15th February, 2016 SUIT NO. NICN/EN/24/2014 BETWEEN: UMOH ABRAHAM TITUS==============CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT AND GOLDEN ROYALE RESORT AND APARTMENT LTD==============DEFENDANT/APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: S. T. Sanni Esq. appeared for the Claimant/Respondent. S.C.A.V. Umeha Esq. appeared for the Respondent/Applicant. RULING The Claimant in this suit took out a Complaint against the Defendant dated and filed on 14th day of March, 2014. The reliefs sought against the Respondent are as follows: a. A DECLARATION that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant is in violation of his right and an outright contravention of the letters of employment and that same was done in bad faith and therefore illegal, null and void. b. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s salaries and allowances from the date of the illegal termination till judgment of this Honourable Court is given. c. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s remuneration for the dual capacity he holds throughout his employment with the Defendant. d. The sum of Two Hundred Million Naira (N200, 000, 000) only being general damages for the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment, the hunger, trauma and psychology (sic) effect he and his family went through as a result of the wrongful and sudden termination of his employment, the stigmatization as a result of wrongful allegation of incompetency he was accused of. e. The sum of One Million Naira Only (N1, 000, 000) only as cost of this action. ALTERNATIVE PRAYERS; f. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant three month (sic) salaries and allowances in lieu of notice of termination of employment as contained in the letter of employment of the Claimant. i.e. The sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N750,000). Payment of service charge allowance for the three month (sic) as calculated from the total sum of sales for three months. g. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s remuneration for the dual capacity he holds throughout his employment with the Defendant. h. The sum of Five Hundred Million Naira (N500, 000, 000) only being general damages for the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment, the hunger, trauma and psychology (sic) effect he and his family went through as a result of the wrongful and sudden termination of his employment, the stigmatization as a result of wrongful allegation of incompetency he was accused of. Filed along with the Complaint are the Statement of Facts, list of witnesses, Witness Statement on Oath, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. Upon being served with the processes of the Claimant, the Defendant filed a conditional Memorandum of Appearance, Defendant’s Statement of defence, list of witnesses, statement on oath of the witness, and list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. All these were filed on 21st day of April, 2014, but with leave of court for filing out of time granted on 12th day of May, 2015. On the said 21st day of April, 2015, the defendant also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th day of April, 2015, in which it prays the Court for the following reliefs: 1. An order striking this suit for being incompetent and for lack of jurisdiction. 2. Such further order or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make under the circumstances. The grounds for the application are that: i) There is no affidavit by the Claimant verifying the endorsement on this Complaint to authorize the sealing thereof by the Registrar. ii) The suit was not initiated by due process of law. The said Notice of Preliminary Objection was accompanied with a written address dated 20th day of April, 2015 and filed on 21st day of April, 2015. Upon being served with the said Notice of Objection, the Claimant filed a reply address dated 27th day of April, 2015 on the 28th day of April, 2015. In his written address the learned counsel for the Defendant/Applicant formulated and argued a lone issue for the Court’s determination to wit: Whether in view of the vices that afflicted the Claimant’s case as constituted, this court is not robbed of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit? Arguing this issue, learned counsel submitted that this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear the instant suit. The issue of jurisdiction of a Court to hear and determine this suit pending before it is fundamental and sacrosanct and has to be determined to avoid unnecessary dissipation of energy and resources should this court find that it lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear this suit. It is particularly relevant to determine in limine i.e. at the first opportunity whether there is jurisdiction. It is not necessary to go into the issues in a case where there is no jurisdiction as this will be futile exercise. The exercise of jurisdiction where there is none will result in a nullity. The issue of jurisdiction must be raised timeously and resolved first before embarking on further proceedings. Learned counsel referred the Honourable Court to the case of Manson vs Halliburton Energy Services Ltd (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 211 @ 243; paras. C-F. Counsel continued that sequel to the above authority, it is his submission that the issue of jurisdiction cannot be over emphasized as it is a threshold issue. He again referred to the case of A-G Federation vs Abubakar (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) where it was held as follows: Jurisdiction is the pillar of every adjudication. Consequently, courts of law must first determine the issue of jurisdiction when it is raised. This is because if the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, that is the end of the matter, and the suit will be struck out; though the law allows the plaintiff to return to the court after repairing the jurisdictional blunder. That it is trite that in order for the trial court to assume jurisdiction over a matter before it, the subject matter of the action must not only be within its jurisdiction but the case before the court must be initiated by due process of law and the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction must be complied with. Thus, this were the conditions enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Madukolu vs Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587. Counsel further referred to Chris vs Ononuju (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 211 @ 243; paras C-F where the Court of Appeal held as follows:- The court will be competent and have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter before it where the court is properly constituted as regards number and qualification of the members of the bench; The subject matter of the action is within the jurisdiction of the court; and the case before the court is initiated by the due process of law, or that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction is complied with. (Underlining is learned counsel’s). Learned counsel then proceeded that Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 provides thus: Any action for determination by the Court shall be commenced by way of a Complaint which shall be filed and sealed. The Complaint shall be in Form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require. According to counsel the above mentioned Rules of this Honourable Court provide that before a Complaint is issued, the following certificate must be indorsed on it. The certificate to be indorsed on the Complaint by the Registrar is as provided in Form 1 especially on page B420 of the Rules. He continued that the Rules of this Court provide that the Registrar of this Court must endorse the following certificate on the Complaint before it is issued, i.e. “A sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on this Complaint to authorize the sealing there of had been produced to me this ……Day of……20…..”. Learned counsel then submitted that the condition precedent for the Registrar of the Court to make the above mandatory certificate on the writ is that the Claimant must have sworn and file a verifying affidavit in verification of the facts stated in the statement of facts and/or endorsement on the Complaint. The Claimant herein contrary to the provisions of the extant Rules of this Court did not file and/or swear to a verifying affidavit in verification of the endorsement on the Complaint originating this suit. The implication is that the statement of facts in this case and/or the endorsement on this Complaint was not verified as required by the Rules. Therefore, counsel contends that without the Claimant verifying the statement of facts and/or endorsement on this Complaint, the Registrar of this Court cannot make the afore cited certificate as stipulated by the Rules. He submitted that the failure of the Claimant to swear to a verifying affidavit, verifying the statement of facts and/or endorsement on the Complaint is fatal as it amounts to non-fulfillment of the condition precedent for the proper commencement of this action and therefore robs this court of jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Counsel further submitted that a Claimant swearing to a verifying affidavit, verifying facts of the Complaint is the pre-condition or condition precedent to the Registrar making the necessary endorsements or certificate on the writ before it is issued. Any certificate made on the writ by the Registrar without a verifying affidavit, verifying the statement of facts and/or endorsement on the Complaint is a nullity and void abinitio. The implication of the failure by the Claimant to swear and/or file a verifying affidavit is that this suit was not initiated by due process of law. Learned counsel then submitted that the above incurable vice which afflicted the Claimant’s suit goes to the root of the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit. In D.E.N.R Ltd vs Trans Int’l Bank Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 389, the Supreme Court held that:- Pre-conditions are conjunctives and non-fulfillment or absence of any of them automatically robs the court the jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. The Supreme Court in the afore cited case at page 399 had this to say on the effect of non-compliance with pre-condition for initiating a legal process: Where a pre-condition for initiating a legal process is laid down, any suit instituted in contravention of the pre-condition provision is incompetent and a court of law lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same. Counsel further referred to the decision in the case of UBA vs Ekpo (2003) 12 NWLR (PT. 834) 332. He added that the Supreme Court in Chief S.S. Obaro vs Alhaji Sale Hassan (2013) 2 iLaw/SC.98/2004 held thus: Writ of Summons therefore being an originating process must be initiated properly to enable the court assume jurisdiction over the matter. As shown above, the issue on the time to issue a writ was raised by the appellant himself but was not directly determined by the court below. In other words, in a case initiated pursuant to the relevant Rules on “Undefended List”, due process of law and fulfillment of condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction will include the properly issued writ of summons and filing of a ‘definitive’ affidavit verifying the plaintiff’s cause of action. Where this is not done or shown to have been done, the case cannot be said to have been initiated by due process of law and a condition precedent could not have been said to be fulfilled to enable the trial court proceed to adjudicate on the matter. I am therefore not in the slightest doubt that the court below was right to have held that failure of the appellant to file a separate affidavit verifying the cause of action robbed the trial court of competence. On the strength of the above Supreme Court authorities counsel submitted that this court lacks the requisite powers to entertain the Claimant’s suit as presently constituted. That once a court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a suit, any order made by it in the course of the proceedings in the case is null and void and of no effect. Issues of jurisdiction are not determined on sentiments. Once there is no jurisdiction, the merits of the case become irrelevant. He referred to D.E.N.R Ltd vs Trans Int’l Bank Ltd, supra.Counsel continued that Jurisdiction of court is very fundamental and it is why all the courts in Nigeria are vested with some specific statutory jurisdiction. This is why a court, be it a trial or an appellate court, has a duty to put an end to any proceedings before it when or once it discovers that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain and/or determine it. Otherwise, it will be a nullity, whatever the merits of the case may be. He referred to D.E.N.R. Ltd vs Trans Int’l Bank Ltd, supra; Adesola vs Abidoye (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 637) 28; Adefulu vs Okulaja (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 550) 435. Learned counsel submitted further that the Rules of Court provide that the Registrar of this Court must endorse the following certificate on Complaint before it is issued, i.e., “A sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on this Complaint to authorize the sealing there of had been produced to me this ….Day of….20….”. From the foregoing, it is not in doubt, according to counsel, that before the Registrar of this Court can make the above certificate, the Claimant must have sworn a sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on the Complaint authorizing the sealing of the writ. He submitted further that in the absence of a verifying affidavit, any certificate on the writ is a nullity and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is indubitable from all the processes filed by the Claimant in this case that the Claimant totally neglected, refused and/or failed to comply with the above mandatory provisions of the Rules of this Court. Learned counsel added further that the Rules of Court are sacrosanct and should be obeyed. That in Olaniyan vs Oyewole (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 114 the Court of Appeal held that: The rules of court must be obeyed. If there is non-compliance with the rules, it must be explained and if not, unless it is of minimal kind, no indulgence of the court can be granted. Furthermore, in Dimegwu vs Oguneme (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1116) 358, the Court held thus:- The rules governing the procedure and practice of the courts which were made by the respective heads of courts in question, pursuant to the provision conferred thereupon by the 1999 Constitution, form part and parcel of the Constitution. The legal effect is that once it is shown that the Rules are made under powers conferred by the Constitution, they have the same force of law as the Constitution itself. He referred also to Akanbi vs Alao (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 118; Abia State University vs Anyaibe (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 439) 646.Similarly, counsel added, it was further held by the Court of Appeal in Cler Josh Ltd vs Tokimi (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 422 that: Where a rule of court has clearly and unambiguously provided for a particular act or situation, the courts have a duty to enforce the act or situation. In this regard, the issue of doing substantial justice should not arise. Thus, a party who fails to comply with a rule of court has himself to blame and he cannot be heard to canvass the ominous ground of doing substantial justice. The courts have a duty to apply the principles of substantial justice according to law, and such principles cannot be applied outside the law or in contradiction of the law. A court of law will not be performing its role as an independent umpire if it bends back ward to do justice to one of the parties at the expense of the other party. He further cited the case of Dada vs Dosunmu (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1010) 134 and added that also in the case of Ikemi vs Efamo (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 499) p. 318 at 326, paras. G-H, the Court held that: It is trite law that the rules of court are meant to be observed and no favours should be shown for non-compliance. Continuing, counsel stated that the uncompromising nature of the rules of court was aptly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Owners, MV “Arabella” vs N.A.I.C. (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) where Ogbuagu JSC held thus:- Firstly, as to how rules of court are treated, it is now firmly settled that Rules of Courts are not mere rules, but they per take of the nature of subsidiary legislation by virtue of section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act and therefore have force of law. See the case of Akanbi& Ors vs Alog& Anor (1989) 5 SCNJ 1 at 10; (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 118. That is why Rules of court must be obeyed. This is because and this is also settled, that when there is non-compliance with the rules of court, the court, should not remain passive and helpless. There must be a sanction, otherwise, the purpose of enacting the Rules, will be defeated. See the cases of Oba Aromolaran& Anor vs Oladele & Ors (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 162) 359 CA; Bango vs Chado (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 564) 139; The Hon. Justice Kalu Anya vs African Newspapers of Nigeria Limited (1992) 7 SCNJ (Pt.1) 47; (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 319 and Mr C.O. Duke vs Akpabuyo Local Government (2005) 12 SCNJ 280 at 290-298; (2005) 12 SCM 174 at 185-193; (2006) 123 LRCN 108 at 129-142; (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 294) 559 at 573-850 and (2006) Vol. 2 MJSC 94 just to mention a few. In other words, rules of court are not only meant to be obeyed, they are also binding on all the parties before the court. See the case of Ajayi & Anor vs Omoregbe (1993) 7 SCNJ (Pt.1) 168; (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 301) 512. I have gone so far, because of the obvious intendment of the appellant and its learned counsel, to trivialize on the importance of Rules of Court. In conclusion counsel urged the Court to hold that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit as presently constituted. On his own part, learned counsel for the Claimant/respondent formulated and argued the following issue for determination: Whether this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter in the event that the Claimant/Respondent Complaint did not complied (sic) with the rules of this court? Arguing the said issue counsel stated that he admits that jurisdiction is not only sacrosanct to determination of a case but it is also its life wire. This is trite and this position has been upheld from time immemorial. He added that this Honourable Court indeed has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter. A closer look at the Claimant/Respondent’s Originating process reveals that it did not only comply with the provision of the Rule of this court as stated in Order 3 Rule 1, 2(1) and 4(i)-(iii) but it is also in conformity with the prescribed FORM 1 as contained in the schedule of the Rules particularly at page B420 which provides thus; A sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on this complaint to authorize the sealing there of has been produced to me this…day of….. Learned counsel further submitted that the Claimant complied strictly with the above provision of the Rules of this court which necessitated the Registrar to accepting his Originating process for filing. Otherwise, the Registrar would not have accepted the Claimant’s process for filing if gulped with irregularities or non-compliance; counsel then referred to the provision of Order 3 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Honourable Court which stated thus; Where a claimant fails to comply with rule 2, 3, 4 or 5 of this Order, as the case may be, his or her originating process shall not be accepted for filing by the Registry. To learned counsel, the combined effect of the provision of Order 3 of the Rules of this honourable Court vice a vice a close look at the Originating process of the claimant in this matter reveals that all is well with the Claimant’s Originating process before this court. Furthermore, counsel stated that assuming without conceding to the issue of non-compliance as raised by the Defendant/Applicant, Order 5 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Honourable Court states thus: Failure to comply with any of these Rules may be treated as an irregularity and the court may give any direction as it thinks fit. Learned counsel continued that the effect of the above provision is that where there is either non-compliance or omission to any of the Rues as stated, the court is obliged to treat same as an irregularity, in other words, irregularity or omission can be cured by this court. He submitted further that assuming the defendant/Applicant’s allegation of non-compliance with Order 3 Rule 1 is true, this application should still fail as it is not only belated but also that the Defendant/Applicant had taken steps by filing statement of defence and also a motion to file same out of time even after becoming aware of the alleged irregularity. He referred the court to the provision of Order 5 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Honourable Court. Continuing, counsel submitted that Order 5 Rule 3 enjoin this Honourable Court to depart from the Rules of this Honourable Court where the interest of justice so requires. The implication of the above Order 5 Rule 3 is that the court should be more concerned with substantial justice rather than technicalities. To counsel the justice of this case requires that it should be determined on its merit rather than technicality. That the Supreme Court has stated in a plethora of cases that substantial justice cannot be sacrificed on an altar of technicalities. He cited Anyankoya vs Olukoya (1996) 2 SCNJ 292 @ 302, and A-G Federation vs A-G Abia State (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 689. That the era of technicalities has been overwhelmed by the era of substantial justice and as such justice should not be slaughtered on an excuse of technicalities. The Supreme Court in the case of Afolabi vs Adekunle (1983) A NLR p. 470 @ 481 stated thus: While recognizing that the rules of court be followed by parties to a suit, it is perhaps necessary to emphasize that justice is not a fencing game in which parties engage themselves in an exercise of outsmarting each other in whirligig of technicalities, to the detriment of the substantial issue between them. Counsel then submitted that this application was brought in bad faith and should be discountenanced and refused forthwith with substantial cost awarded in favour of the Claimant as this is a fruitless application with a deliberate ploy to delay the cause of justice in this matter. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of the learned counsel to the parties on the preliminary objection raised by the Defendant. I have equally gone through the authorities cited by them in support of their respective positions. The issue for determination in my humble view is whether or not the suit of the Claimant is competent following his failure to file a Verifying Affidavit accompanying his Originating processes. The learned Defendant’s counsel has submitted that by the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, as amended, the Complaint of the Claimant must have endorsed on it a certificate in the following terms: A sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on this Complaint to authorize the sealing thereof had been produced to me this….day of…20…. Thereafter counsel argued that the processes as filed by the Claimant have not been accompanied by a Verifying Affidavit which was the one to have been seen by the Registrar before endorsing the said certificate. The Claimant then submitted that the absence of the Verifying Affidavit has resulted in the non-fulfillment of a condition precedent for the Registrar to endorse the said certificate on the Complaint. To the learned counsel therefore, this singular omission makes the suit incompetent and robs this Honourable Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as presently constituted. He cited a number of authorities including D.E.N.R. Ltd vs Trans Int’L Bank Ltd (2008), Supra, and UBA vs Ekpo (2003), supra. He equally drew the court’s attention to the case of Chief S.S. Obaro vs Alhaji Sale Hassan (2013), LPELR-20089 (SC), where the failure to file a Verifying Affidavit by a Claimant was held to make the suit incompetent. In his reaction the learned counsel for the Claimant maintained that a closer look at Claimant’s originating process reveals that it did not only comply with the provision of the Rules of this Court as stipulated in Order 3 Rules 1, 2(1) and (4)(i)-(iii), but that it is in conformity with the prescribed FORM 1 as contained in the Schedule of the Rules particularly at Page B420 which provides thus: A sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on this complaint to authorize the sealing thereof had been produced to me this…day of…20… He submitted further that the Claimant complied strictly with this provision which necessitated the Registrar accepting his Originating Processes for filing. He then referred to Order 3 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Honourable Court which provides that: Where a claimant fails to comply with rule 2, 3, 4 or 5 of this Order, as the case may be, his or her originating process shall not be accepted for filing by the Registry. He then urged the Court to accept that the Claimant’s processes are proper before the Court. On the alternative he urged the court to apply the provisions of Order 5 rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 as amended, wherein any non-compliance with the Rules of Court should be treated as mere irregularity. He added that the court should not be swayed by technicality but rather the need to do substantial justice as the era of technicalities has been overwhelmed by the era of substantial justice and as such justice should not be slaughtered on an excuse of technicality. In addressing this issue it is important to point what the rules require a Claimant to file. This is to be found in Order 3 rules 1 and 4(i)(ii)(iii) and(iv) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 as amended, which I hereby reproduce: 1. Any action for determination by the Court shall be commenced by way of Complaint which shall be filed and sealed. The Complaint shall be in Form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require. 4. The Complaint shall be accompanied by: (i) a statement of facts establishing the cause of action. (ii) copies of every document to be relied on at the trial. (iii) list of witnesses to be called. (iv) Written Statements on Oath of all witnesses listed to be called by the Claimant. It is trite that where the provisions of a statute or document are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their clear meaning. The provisions of the Rules of this Court reproduced above are quite clear and must be given their clear meaning. However, what the learned Defendant’s counsel is saying is that the rule 1 above has referred to Form 1 and that in that Form a requirement as to a certificate to be endorsed thereon has been provided. I have examined the said Form 1 and it shows that the Registrar is to sign the certificate so endorsed. The argument of the learned counsel here is that there is a duty on the Registrar of Court to have seen the sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on the Complaint before he signs the said Form 1. But what is more important from my understanding of the Claimant’s argument is that the said verifying affidavit must accompany the Complaint. Here I do not think the argument of the learned Defendant’s counsel is correct. This is because the provisions of Order 3 rules 1 and 4(i)-(iv) as reproduced above are quite clear. A verifying affidavit is not one of the documents stipulated to accompany the Complaint of the Claimant. The learned defendant’s counsel has relied on the case of Chief S.S. Obaro vs Alhaji Sale Hassan (2013), supra, to argue that a verifying affidavit is required in this case. However, a careful look at Obaro’s case shows that the proceedings in it concerned “Undefended List”procedure, where the requirement of a verifying affidavit was expressly stipulated by the rules of the Court in question. The Supreme Court, per Ariwoola JSC, at pp. 28-29, explained the situation as follows: However, for the Rules on Undefended List Procedure to successfully apply and enable the court to proceed to summary judgment, the following preliminary requirements must exist. (i)The defendant must not only have been served with the required processes, he must also have entered appearance. (ii) A claim must have been indorsed on, or attached to the Writ of Summons served upon the defendant. (iii) There must be a definitive affidavit (which is evidence on oath) verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and also that the defendant has no defence to the action. (iv)The defendant must not have filed a defence to the action. See; Chief Halord Sodipo V. LekmninkainenOy& Anor (No. 2) (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 15) 220 at 230-231, per Eso, JSC. On the action initiated pursuant to the Rules on Undefended List Procure, this Court had opined as follows –per Eso, JSC at page 231 of Chief HaroldSodipo V. Lemninkainen (supra) “An action in the undefended list, following these Rules, is not a real substitute to trial of actions, but it serves the purpose of reducing congestion in the courts, by way of creating an avenue for the speedy determination of actions. If a defendant is served with a writ and a statement of claim, and he enters an appearance to the action, having read the affidavit that he has no defence, he cannot be seen to complain after, that he has not had a fair trial.” There is no doubt the procedure under undefended list Rules is a bit technical and must be understood properly to be of benefit to parties employing it and the court.” His Lordship continued further: As clearly shown in the Rules, an application being made to court for issuance of a writ of summons is to be accompanied with a supporting affidavit and other necessary and relevant documents to be considered by the court to make a firm decision, before the adversary is brought in, whether or not the action is fit for trial under the undefended list. Yet, after the court is convinced that with the facts disclosed in the endorsed claim, the affidavit and if any, the documents attached as exhibits, a writ is ordered to be issued by the Registrar, there shall then be delivered by the plaintiff to the Registrar upon the issue of the writ of summons as stated in rule 1 of Order 23, as many copies of the said affidavit as there are parties against whom relief is sought, and the Registrar shall then annex one such copy of the