"I am surprised that learned counsel for the Appellant noticed that the counter affidavit of the Respondents had suit No. TRST/38/2010 instead of suit No. TRSJ/38/2010 and he kept quiet only to make it an issue on appeal. The appeal Court cannot entertain such a complaint. The complaint ought to have been made at the Court below. As learned counsel for the Respondents pointed out if the complaint was made at the Court below the necessary correction would have been made or effected. The primary duty of any Court is to do substantial justice. An appellate Court has a duty to do substantial justice between the parties before it and not to be bugged down by technicalities. The wheel of justice will no longer be allowed be clogged with technicalities. See Shuaibu vs. Nigeria - Arab Bank Ltd (1998) LPELR-3067 SC page 18 -19 and Akpan vs. Effiong Bob & 4 Ors (2010) LPELR-376 SC. Learned counsel for the Appellant knew that the error in the number of the suit in the counter affidavit was a mere typographical error. That is why he was dumb on it. I am disappointed that learned counsel for the Appellant will make this typography error a complaint on appeal. It is this attitude of Appellant's counsel that instigated learned counsel for the Respondents to note that the Appellant was concerned with technicalities which the Courts over the years have frowned at. I agree entirely with learned counsel for the Respondents that the Appellant's complaint on the minor typography error is a pursuit of technicalities rather than substantial justice. This must be deprecated by the Court."

Per ABIRIYI, J.C.A. CHUKWUOKEKE v. NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL CO-OP & RURAL DEVT BANK LTD & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45037(CA)