LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

instant matter. That said; if I may repeat
there can be no argument about it that no
pre-action notice has been served on the
respondent as required by Section 26(2)
(supra); the appellant has not controverted
that point and the consequences are trite and
obvious. See: Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1961)
2 NSCC.374 - a case that has settled the
ingredients of jurisdiction to include inter alia
that a case has to be initiated by due process
of law and upon fulfillment of any condition
precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any
defects in these respects render the entire
proceedings incompetent; in this case for
failing to serve pre-action notice on the
respondent as provided by Section 26(2). The
question of non-service of pre-action notice
ought to be taken as conceded by the
appellant on the peculiar facts of this matter
as it is evident that the appellant has never
claimed to have done so... And I so hold. It
therefore follows that once it is established
that the respondent is entitled to be so served
with pre-action notice on the circumstances of
this case then on the facts of the appellant's
action, the instant action in its entirety
becomes incompetent (the pre-action notice
not having been served on the respondent)
and the court is therefore, not clothed with
the jurisdiction to entertain the action. See:
Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (supra). The overall
implication of my reasoning above is that the