RULING Upon being served with the originating processes commencing this suit, the Defendant vide notice of preliminary objection dated 22/8/17, filed on 25/8/17, raised preliminary objection to the competence of this action on the grounds stated here under:- There is want of jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit by this Honourable Court. As a result of the above, this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit and should therefore dismiss and/or strike out same. The particulars of the grounds of objection were given as follows:- 1. The entire originating process as filed by the plaintiff flagrantly contravene the Rules of this Honourable Court and therefore unknown and or alien to the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. 2. The entire complaint by the Claimant is incompetent as the Claimant failed to comply with the procedure of the main process to activate the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court as provided under order 3 Rule 1 (1), 2, 10 and form 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The notice of preliminary objection was accompanied by a written address which was adopted by Counsel for the Defendant as his argument on the preliminary objection. In the written address Counsel submitted lone issue for determination, to wit:- ‘‘Whether in view of the non-compliance of the Claimant with the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1(1), 2, 10 and form 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, this Honourable Court can assume jurisdiction on this suit as presently constituted’’. A. O. Oloriaje, Esq; Counsel for the Defendant in advancing his argument submitted that this Court lacks requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit as it is presently constituted. It is the contention of Counsel that for this Court to exercise judicial power to hear and adjudicate or determine this suit, certain features must exist in the face of the action brought before it which include fundamentally amongst other things that the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. On this submission Counsel relied on MADUKOLU V NKENDLIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 581, LAWAL V OKE (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt.711) 88. It is submitted by Counsel that in the case at hand the Claimant went on a frolic of his own to fabricate format of process for the commencement of this suit. According to Counsel there is no compliance with the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1(1), 2, 10 and Form 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit, as the same is very defective and incompetent. Counsel referred this Court to the case of NDUKA V EZENWAKU (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.709) 494 and ATUNGWU V OCHAKU (2000) 1 NWLR (PT.641) 507. It is the submission of Counsel that a communal diagnosis of the Rules of this Honourable Court under Order 3 Rule 1(1), 2, 10 and Form 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, and the purported complaint filed by the Claimant in this suit, this Court will observe flagrant non-compliance, self-created process that is alien and unknown to the Rules governing and directing the affairs of this Honourable Court. It is further submitted that Order 3 Rule 10 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, stated that the complaint shall be in the format set out in form 1. Counsel submitted that the format and contents of a complaint by this rule have been enshrined and codified. Counsel submitted that rules of Court are not meant for reading like newspaper, but meant to be complied with and obeyed not only by litigants but also by the court, more especially for a specialized court. Counsel also contended that the use of the word shall in order 3 Rule 10 has made it mandatory, on this submission Counsel relied on YUSUF V STATE (2011) 18 NWLR (pt.1279) 853 and REV. JOSHUA ELSON KALLAMU V NUHU BOBO GUNRIN & 20 ORS. (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt.847) 493. It is the contention of Counsel that the Claimant did not comply with the clear and unambiguous provisions of Order 3 Rule 1(1), 2, 10 and Form 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, and 2017, which non-compliance is fatal to this action and renders this suit completely incompetent and liable to be struck out. It is contended that the Claimant attempted to change the identity of this Honourable Court by the nature of the purported and incompetent process filed before this Honourable court. Counsel contended that this court has been vested with the power to not only to protect the identity of this Honourable Court, but also adhere and direct strict compliance with the rules of this Court. In support of this submission Counsel relied on BAKARE V APENA (1986) 4 NWLR (pt.33) 6. In concluding his submission Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant’s action is dead on arrival for non-compliance with and non-observance of integral provisions of the rules of this court which strangulated the breath to sustain this suit. In opposition to this application, the Claimant on 4/12/17, filed a written address to the Defendant’s notice of preliminary objection. Ifeabunachi Onye, Esq; Counsel for the Claimant while arguing his objection orally adopted the reply address as his argument in opposition to the preliminary objection. In the written address counsel submitted two issues for determination. They are:- 1. ‘'Whether the claimant’s originating process before this Honourable Court completely/substantially complies with the rules of this Honourable Court in form and in other that the Honourable court can have and exercise its jurisdiction on this matter’’. 2. ‘‘Whether a failure, by the originating processes to comply strictly with the extant prescribed format as per the rules of this Honourable Court can deprive this Honourable Court of the jurisdiction to entertain this matter’’. On issue one, Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the originating process commencing this suit has completely and substantially complied with the rules of this court in form, nature and content. It is the submission of Counsel that the Originating Process filed by the Claimant before this Court has complied with Order 3 Rule 1(1), 2, 10 and Form 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. Counsel submitted that a critical look at the complaint will show that it is in compliance with Order 3 Rule 10. Counsel referred to Order 3 Rule 1(1), 2, 10 and Form 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, and the case of IKOYA PROPERTIES V MR. SEYI SOWEMIMO SAN & ORS (2016) LPELR-42238 (CA), where Court of Appeal held that Court is not concerned with trifles but with substance. According to Counsel what the defendant want to do in this case is to prevent this Court from doing justice on the merit on the flimsy ground that the complaint did not adhere strictly to the rules of this Court. Counsel also submitted that this court should not be persuaded by technicalities and diversionary argument, but to fix its gaze on the need and duty of doing substantial justice on the merit. On issue two, Counsel submitted that even if there are observed omissions in the originating processes by which this suit was initiated by the Claimant that same is not capable of divesting this Honourable Court of jurisdiction. Counsel also submitted that the primary and cardinal objective of this Court is to do substantial justice. Thus, why the rules of this court are replete with provisions which established that that strict adherence to the provisions of the rules shall not be required where interest of justice so demands. According to Counsel in such circumstance non-compliance with rules will be treated as irregularity. On this submission Counsel relied on Order 1 Rule 9(3), Order 5 Rule 1 , Order 5 Rule 3, Order 5 Rule 6(3) COURT’S DECISION I have carefully considered all the processes filed and the submissions of Counsel for the parties in respect of the preliminary objection of the Defendant to the competency of this suit. However, I would like to formulate lone issue for determination, which I feel can determine the preliminary objection raised by the Defendants. The issue is: ‘‘whether the originating process commencing this suit is incompetent’’. From the notice of preliminary objection, it is clear as day light that the objection is being raised on non-compliance with the rules of court and not based on infraction any provisions of the Constitution or statutory provisions. It is settled law that jurisdiction in the broad and substantive sense cannot be conferred by Rules of Court. See IWANYANWU & ANOR. (1989) NWLR (Pt.107) 39, (1989) 4 SC Pt. ii, 89, It is patently clear beyond any doubt that Rules of Court cannot confer jurisdiction, as such a rule regulates practice of the Court in the exercise of a derived power. Rules of practice and procedure confer procedural but not substantive jurisdiction on a Court. They are meant to ensure that affairs of Court are carried out in an orderly fashion. But, it must be obeyed strictly. ATANDA V AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.111) 511, G. M. O. N. & CO Ltd V AKPUTA (2010) 9 NWLR (PT.1200) 443, THE STATE V ONAGORUWA (1992) 2 SCNJ (Pt.1) 1 @ 19. It is the submission of Counsel for the Defendant that this suit was commenced with a defective process in that the complaint violate the provisions of Order 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules) 2017, that governed commencement of action. The Claimant on his part submitted that the Complaint filed to commence this suit is competent and properly filed, because it is in substantial compliance with the Rules of Court. Order 3 of the Rules of this Court which governed commencement of action requires an action to be commenced via any of the forms of commencement stated therein. This action was commenced via a complaint which is one of the forms provided under Order 3 Rule 1. According to the rules of this Court a complaint is to specifically state the relief or reliefs claimed either singly or in the alternative. The complaint is to be accompanied with the processes stated hereunder:- I. A statement of facts establishing cause of action. II. Copies of documents to be relied at the trial III. List of witnesses to be called IV. Written statement on oath of all witnesses listed to be called. See order 3 Rules 9, and 13 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. The practice and procedure in the Court in respect of institution, commencement and trial of suits are akin to, in most respect to those of the state High Courts with relevant modification to accommodate the peculiarities of the court’s jurisdictional scope. However, it must be pointed out here that the practice and procedure of this Court are designed with the ultimate goals of attaining a just, efficient and speedy dispensation of justice, as well as enabling the Court, as a specialist Court, to hear and determine cases expeditiously, fairly and equitably. The Court may therefore disregard any technical irregularity in the rules that does not and is not likely to result in a miscarriage of justice. This does not mean that the Court will ignore non-compliance with its Rules at a wave of hand. I agree with the Counsel for the Defendant that Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed. They are designed and made to regulate the proceeding for orderly determination of issues submitted to the Court by the parties. This however, does not mean that non-compliance with the Rules can be condoned. The party contesting non-compliance with the Rules of Court has a duty to do so timeously. Otherwise the objection will be overruled. Therefore, any delay to contest infraction of the Rules will be fatal to the party raising the objection. In the case at hand I have had a hard look at the complaint filed on 21st day of July 2017, by the Claimant. It is patently clear that the complaint was in substantial compliance with Order 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. Even if the complaint was not in total compliance with the rules of this Court, by the provision of Order 3 Rule 21 (2) a Defendant can challenge competency of a complaint filed against him provided he does so within seven working days from the date of receipt of the originating Court processes. From the record of the Court the Defendants in this suit were served with the Originating processes commencing this suit on 25th July 2017. From the record of the Court, this notice of preliminary objection was filed on 25th day of August 2017. This means that from 25th day of July 2017 to 25th day of August 2017 is a period of one Month. From the foregoing revelation, the objection of the Defendant to the competency of the complaint was raised after the time allowed by the Rules of this Court for filing of such objection has elapsed and there was nothing to show that the Defendant sought and obtained leave of Court to file their objection out of time. In view of the failure to obtain extension of time to file the notice of preliminary objection to the complaint by the Defendant to the validity of the Originating processes commencing this suit, the objection is incompetent in itself, in so far as they relate to the form of the complaint commencing this suit. Order 3 Rule 21(2) of the Rules of this Court is very clear on this issue. In the circumstance I hold that the objection to the competency of the complaint is baseless, as in the eyes of the law there is no proper objection to the complaint before the Court. In view of this finding I hold that the complaint is saved from being nullified. Apart from the objection of the Defendant being incompetent, it is also in my view based on technicality. This is against the prevailing trend in the judiciary of ensuring doing substantial justice. The courts have since moved away from technicality. See COLITO (NIG) LIMITED V HONOURABLE JUSTICE TITI DAIBU (2010)2 NWLR pt 1178 and JOSIAH OLUWOLE FRANCIS V CITEC INTERNATIONAL ESTATE LTD (2010) NWLR pt 1219 at pg 252 para 14. This Court will therefore tread on the path of current jurisprudential posture which emphasizes that at all times substantial justice should be seen to be done to parties and their rights determined on merits. This Court will at all times jettisoned any call to use technicality to defeat justice. Use of technicality arises where a party seeks to capitalize on procedural irregularity to defeat justice. The law no doubt is that rules of Court should be obeyed. However, this Court has consistently held to the effect that as a general rule, non-compliance with rules of Court is an irregularity. Non-compliance cannot be a ground of nullity unless such non-compliance amount to denial of justice, it must always be remembered that rules of Court are rules of procedure made for the convenience and orderly hearing of case. In view of the reasons given above, this application fails and is hereby dismissed. Sanusi Kado, Judge.