3 was sought had already been made. There is nothing therefore, left for the court to exercise its discretion upon. To ask the court to legalize what is not before the court, is not within the contemplation of interlocutory applications. It would have been a different matter, if there is a formal application as provided for under Order 7 of the Rules of this court for leave and attaching the proposed notice and the affidavit. The court will under such circumstance, be compelled to consider such application before proceeding to deal with what is provided under Order 21 Rule 3 (1). All the authorities relevant to undefended list procedure insist on strict interpretation of the provisions governing the action. See Ben Thomas Hotels v. Sebi Furniture Co. Ltd (1989)12 SCNJ 171 where the Supreme court per Kayode Eso JSC (as he then was) said: “When a case entered on the undefended list comes to court on the return date, the court has one and only one duty, namely to see whether the defendant has filed a notice of intention to defend and affidavit. If no such notice and affidavit has been filed within five days before the return date, the court has no choice in the matter but to proceed to judgment.” There is no such notice properly filed in this case. The oral application was made after filing. Such application, as I said before should have been made under Order 7 and not Order 20 and it should be by way of motion as it is the only way the strict compliance requirement of this procedure can be attended to, either to grant or refuse. What is more, even if I were to entertain and consider the application, the guiding rule should be to see if the affidavit