(3)     The magistrate did not exceed his jurisdiction because Order IX of the Magistrates' Court (Civil Procedure) Rules gives the court very wide powers to amend defects or errors in proceedings and the error in the application in the present case may be corrected like any other error in any other proceedings.

Appeal dismissed:

Laws referred to:-

Rent Restriction Act, Cap 183 sections 11 and 21(3)

Nigeria Defence (Increase of Rent) Restriction Regulations 1942 (Repealed)

Lagos Rent Assessment Board Rules 1942.

Magistrates' Court (Civil Procedure) Rules Order II, rule 1, 6(1), and Order IX.

G. N. A. Okafor, for the Appellant.

B. A. Agusto, for the Respondent.

De Lestang, C.J. of Lagos:- This appeal arises in the following circumstances:-

Before the enactment of the Rent Restriction Act, certain regulations known as Nigeria Defence (Increase of Rent) Restriction Regulations 1942 were in force. Under those regulations a Rent Assessment Board was established and inter alia, the Lagos Rent Assessment Board Rules 1943 were made. Under those Rules a form of application to the Board to fix the rent of premises was prescribed. When the Rent Restriction Act came into force on the 25th February, 1946, the Nigeria Defence (Increase of Rent) Restriction Regulations 1942 were revoked, the Board ceased to exist and the power to fix rent devolved on the courts. Section 11 of the Rent Restriction Act refers. Nevertheless the Rules made under the Defence Regulations were preserved by section 21(3) of the Act until such time as new Rules were made. No such Rules have been made to date. It is in these circumstances that the respondent, a landlord, filed an application in the Magistrates' Court, Lagos, to fix the rent of certain premises. By inadvertance or carelessness the form prescribed by the Rules made under the Defence Regulations was used without the amendments rendered necessary by the changes which had taken place being made. Thus the application was expressed to be made under the Lagos Rent Assessment Board Rules 1943 and was directed to the "Board to fix the rent of the said premises."

When the matter came before the court the appellant, a tenant, applied for the application to be struck out. The respondent conceded that the form used was defective and applied for leave to amend it so as to remove therefrom all references to the Rules and to the Board. The learned Magistrate allowed the form to be so amended and it is against that decision that the appellant appeals on the ground that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to allow the amendments.

The appellant's contention appears to be that the application was not properly before the court because:-

(a)     It was not commenced by filing a praecipe as required by Order II Rule 6 (1) of the Magistrates' Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, and

(b)     it was addressed to the Board instead of to the court.

It is clear from the Magistrates' Court (Civil Procedure) Rules that it is only when proceedings are commenced by plain that a praecipe must be filed. Order II, rule 1 further provides that an action may be commenced by plaint unless any Ordinance or Rule provides otherwise. I have already referred to the Rent Assessment Board Rules which provide a special procedure for an application to the court to fix the rent, including a form for the purpose. These Rules, as I have explained, are still in force being preserved by section 21(3) of the Rent Restriction Act. There exist therefore Rules providing otherwise and the procedure adopted in the present case was correct. It is, however, true that the form used was defective as the reference to the Board therein was not altered to read "the court." This defect did not, in my view, render the form a nullity because it was filed in court and the court became seized of the application. Order IX of the Magistrates' Court (Civil Procedure) Rules gives the court very wide powers to amend defects or errors in proceedings and I am of the opinion that the error in the application in the present case could be corrected like any other error in any other proceedings. The learned Magistrate did not therefore exceed his jurisdiction in allowing the amendment. For these reasons this appeal] fails and is dismissed with seven guineas costs.