“SHALL” – INTERPRET...
 
Notifications
Clear all

“SHALL” – INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ‘SHALL’ WHEN USED IN A STATUTE

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Likes
59 Views
Manuel Akinshola
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 24
Topic starter  

“SHALL” – INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ‘SHALL’ WHEN USED IN A STATUTE

“It is imperative to state that Order 39 Rules 1 (1) and (2) of the High Court of Lagos state (civil procedures) Rules, 2012 be examined. It is to the effect that any application to be made to the court should be made by way of a motion supported by a written address. The order is hereunder reproduced for clarity purposes;

  1. Where by these rules any application is authorized to be made to a Judge, such application shall be made by motion which may be supported by affidavit and shall state under what rule of court or Law the application is brought. Every motion shall be served within five days of filing.
  2. Every such application shall be accompanied by a written address in support of relief sought. (UNDERLINING MINE)

The use of “shall” in Order 39 Rules 1 (1) and (2) the High Court of Lagos state (civil procedures) Rules, 2012 by the draftsmen makes the provision mandatory. The Apex Court in General Muhammadu Buhari v Independent National Electoral Commission (2008) LPELR – 814 (SC), it was held thus;

When the word “shall” is used in a statute it connotes the intendment of the legislator that what is contained therein must be done or complied with. It does not give room for manoeuvre of some sort, or evasiveness. Whatever the provision requires to be done must be done, and it is not at all negotiable…”

per MUKHTAR, JSC (PP. 276 – 277, PARAS. E –D)

It was further held by this honourable court in Mr. Udak Etim Okon v Mr Ekaette Udak Okon (2016) LPELR – 42056 (CA);

As a general rule the use of the word “shall” connotes and conveys a mandatory message in a statute. See Melaye v Tajudeen (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 315. Fidelity Bank Plc v Monye (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1307) 1, Adeosun v Governor Ekiti State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 581, Dantata v Mohammed (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1302) 366” per OWOADE, JCA (P. 9, PARAS D – F)

  • PER A.O.OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A in ARABA SHITTA DADA & 8 ORS .V.  ADENIRAN ADEDOKUN VENTURES & 6 ORS. ARABA SHITTA DADA & 8 ORS .V.  ADENIRAN ADEDOKUN VENTURES & 6 ORS
This topic was modified 5 months ago by Manuel Akinshola

   
Quote
Share: