As law students, we were taught that substantive law is superior to procedural law.This is theory, but what is obtainable in practice?I was at the Court of Appeal on Monday, 17/03/2025, and I saw firsthand the overarching power of procedure over substantive law.A young female counsel representing the Respondents in an appeal failed to inform the court of the Respondents' Preliminary Objection (PO) before proceeding to adopt her Brief of Argument.She probably laboured under the belief that she would wait her turn to adopt the Respondents' Brief of Argument before raising the PO.However, by procedure, because the Respondents had a PO, she was supposed to have mentioned and argued it before the Appellant's counsel adopted his Brief of Argument, even if the PO is incorporated in the Brief.This is procedure at play.The implication of the young counsel putting the cart before the horse is that her PO was deemed abandoned, having not been raised timeously. This meant that the argument canvassed therein, however lofty, would never be reckoned with—very sadly.When the Justices communicated the position to her, she looked gloomy, and I felt very bad for her.What would she tell her principal? All arguments to save the situation fell on deaf ears. They told her that it was called PO for a reason.The learned silk for the Appellant, having first stood up to argue his Brief of Argument, foreclosed her right to mention her PO. Clearly, she was caught napping by the silk.I kept on imagining that if the Respondents' chance of sustaining the appeal rests solely on the strength of the PO, which had been deemed abandoned, the Respondents' bid to defend the lower court's judgment in their favour would be futile.It is imperative to state that one of the rare qualities that distinguish an advocate from a regular lawyer is the knowledge of procedure, especially at the appellate court.Please don't stop at learning the law of your case. You need to know the process ("the how") by which you can establish or defend it, especially in an era where courts still hold on to technicality. &nbsp;

𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰?

Share on social media