2 Opposing the application, the learned Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that issue of interlocutory applications are governed by Order 7 of the Rules of this court and that they should be by motion. He gave the case of G. M. O. N & S Co. Ltd v. Akpata (2010)9 NWLR (pt.1200) 443 at pp. 474 – 475 arguing that in cases entered under the undefended list, the court has only one duty on the return date. That is, to see whether the defendant had filed a notice of intention to defend and an affidavit. That if no such notice and affidavit are filed, the court has no option but to proceed to judgment. In the instant case, the learned counsel argued that there is no such notice and affidavit properly filed before the court and oral application is not contemplated by the Rules of this court. He therefore urged the court to refuse the oral application and enter judgment in their favour. Undefended list procedure is simple, it is technical and it is a special procedure. Failure to comply with any aspect of the procedure renders the act ineffective and it cannot be classified as a mere irregularity which the court can gloss over. See National Assembly v. C. C. I. Co. Ltd (2008)5 NWLR (pt.1081) 519 at 541 – 542. In the instant case, the defendant filed his notice of intention to defend and affidavit today for which Revenue Collector Receipt no. 2009965331 was issued. Service of the said notice was handed to the Plaintiff’s counsel in the open court and the court’s copy was given to the Registrar. The learned counsel admitted he was out of time but went ahead and orally applied for leave to extend time to file the notice and for a deeming order. What the learned counsel seem to conveniently gloss over is the fact that the act for which the leave

Select target paragraph3