Description
Jurat of attestation – whether the officer – knew the deponent or was introduced to him – the overriding objective principle – procedural law – retrospectively – the oxygen principle – improper citation of enabling provisions – extension of time to file a written statement of defence after the second 21 days – lapse of all statutory days – section 21(2) of the Law of Limitation Act – bring back to life an otherwise dead case – no injustice is occasioned.
- The jurat of attestation of an affidavit did not show whether the officer before whom it was taken knew the deponent or was introduced to him – the Court applied the overriding objective principle in curing that anomaly (p. 7).
- State attorneys are entitled to practice as notaries public and commissioners for oaths regardless of whether the matter is private in nature or not. The only difference is that the remuneration obtained therefrom has to be remitted to the government by such officer (p. 10).
- Procedural law applies retrospectively, even to cases that were filed before that date (p. 13).
- The Court used the overriding objective principle (also referred to as the oxygen principle) to overrule a preliminary objection on improper citation of enabling provisions (p. 13). In arriving at that conclusion, the Court observed that the days when one could almost invariably get away with technical points of law and avoid going into merits of a case are part of history (p. 12). The Court ordered the applicant or the applicant’s advocate to amend the chamber summons by deleting the wrong provisions and substituting them with the proper provision, and endorsing the same with their signature in the margins (p. 16).
- Extension of time to file a written statement of defence after the second 21 days – the applicant filed a first application for extension of time with the second 21 days but the application was struck out on a technicality – he then filed a second application – the respondent argued that the application was untenable since it was filed after the lapse of all statutory days – it was held that the application is not time-barred since the situation falls squarely within the provisions of section 21(2) of the Law of Limitation Act – therefore the Court excluded the period between the day the applicant filed the first application and the day that application was struck out (p. 15).
- Purpose of the oxygen principle – the principle was meant to bring back to life an otherwise dead case so long as in doing so no injustice is occasioned to any of the parties (p. 16).
