by A.A. Raji

One of the fundamental features of law is dynamism. Our laws are bound to change with the change of time and adapt to periodical transformations to suit and fit the current system in play. Looking into the essence of law itself, it is usually said that it is put in place to guide how people behave and do things and to also set a limitation for citizens, for it is said that where there is no law, there is no sin.

But then, laws mostly address present issues—issues currently occurring or are reasonably foreseeable to occur; perhaps the law has to keep changing as novel issues arise to provide a legal footing for such emerging issues.

This brings us to the immortal dictum of Lord Denning, where he said:

“What is the argument on the other side? Only this: that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still while the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for both.”

This apothegm embodies notable takeaways, which I summarized in a few points:

There will always be a first time to everything; the fact that something has not been done before does not mean it is impossible.
Laws are expected to address novel changes and not just remain stale as it was enacted or decided by a court of law; some laws become outdated over time.
If laws are left stagnant, they’ll be outdated and will no longer serve the purpose of justice.
Judges ought to normalize judicial activism, which is the belief that the courts have the authority and duty to consider the wider societal factors of their rulings in addition to the relevant legal requirements.
The importance of not allowing rules, principles, and values to stand still while the world moves on[1].
In Olowolaramo v. Umechukwu[2] The Court of Appeal on the dynamic nature of law held: …Though the law may at times be considered to be conservative, it is never static since it does its best to keep up with developments in society, if not engineering the same.

We have seen the dynamic nature of law working out in both our statutory and judicial laws of the Nigerian legal system; several statutory amendments are carried out when the need arises, and judicial pronouncements are overturned or reversed to serve the purpose of justice.

The Evidence Act was recently altered in 2023. The amendment was done in a bid to make the Act more in line with modern technology and global standards. The act’s main purpose is to make the Nigerian judicial system more efficient and to reduce administrative bottlenecks.

It introduced developments like digital signatures[3] Audio-visual means of deposing to affidavits[4], electronic records as admissible evidence[5] and many more innovations that reshaped Nigerian procedural law and assuaged the hindrances posed by the analog era.

Other legislation, such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (now AMA 2023) and the Electoral Act, were also amended to enhance transparency and accountability and to raise the standard of these laws to be in line with the global trend.

In the judicial space, we’ve encountered many instances where the court overrules its earlier decision for the course of justice; some judgments might not be able to stand the change of time and would have to be reversed.

In the case of Odi v. Osafile[6], Ayo Gabriel Irikefe CJN (as he then was) of blessed memory made a remarkable statement, thus: “Again, where there is a real likelihood of injustice being perpetuated, this court has, in the recent past, had occasion to overrule itself.” The learned justice went further to give an instance of the case of Bucknor-Maclean v. Inlaks Ltd.[7] wherein the apex court took a different position and overruled its previous decision in Shell B.P. v. Jammal Engineering[8] and Owumi v. P.Z.[9] concerning compliance with the form in the schedule.

In light of what prompted me to put up this write-up, it would be pertinent to mention the immense contribution of Lord Alphred Denning in the legal landscape and some of his notable innovations that have paved the way for justice. It was his message that the law must change to suit fast-moving times; why? Because law must be guided by what is just.

One of the notable innovations of Lord Denning was the invention of the Mareva injunction, also known as (the freezing injunction), a development he proudly referred to as “the greatest judicial reform of my time.” The Mareva injunction is a tool that can be used to prevent a debtor from taking their assets out of the jurisdiction of the court. In doing so, the debtor is unable to thwart any potential judgment against them. This was established in the case of Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA[10]

He also developed the principle of promissory estoppel which was firmly established in High trees case[11], where it was held that a promissor can not renege on his promise (even if not supported by consideration) once it has been made and there was a detrimental reliance upon the promise by the promisee.

He however, made it clear that such a promissory estoppel ‘is only suspensive’ and does not permanently extinguish rights.

The significance of ensuring that laws provide solutions to the problem of citizens can not be overemphasized, the society becomes more habitable when laws are made in the interest of the general populace and justice is left to thrive.

Abdullahi Raji is a level 300 student of Bayero University, Kano, a legal researcher and writer.

[1] KATIE ALLAN, From Parker v Parker to Pirate Kings: The legacy of Lord Denning – A toast

[2] (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 537

[3] Section 4 of the Evidence Act 2023

[4] Section 5 of the Act

[5] Section 2 of the Act

[6] (1985) – SC.144/1983

[7] (1980) 8-11 S.C. 1)

[8] (1974) 1 ALL N.L.R. 543

[9] (1974) 1 ALL N.L.R. Part 2

[10] [1980] 1 All ER 213

[11] Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd,’ [1947] KB 130