On August 15, 2024, the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 139, Volume 3 was released, featuring Government Notice No. 30, which publicized the newly issued Supreme Court Rules, 2024. These rules came into effect on August 1, 2024, courtesy of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, GCON.
Notably, the Supreme Court has recorded the slowest pace of reform to its rules compared to other superior courts of record in Nigeria, such as the High Court, Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, and the Court of Appeal. The first post-independence Supreme Court Rules were introduced in 1961, replaced in 1985, amended in 2010, and now replaced again in 2024. This column sheds light on key aspects of the new rules, focusing on the contentious Order 4, which requires urgent review due to potential conflicts with constitutionally guaranteed rights to appeal and fair hearing.
Focal areas explored in this column include the issue of official hours when the Supreme Court Registry is open to the public. Additionally, I examine the nagging issue of serving court papers (processes) in relation to appeals or matters lodged under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, I consider the fees and costs incurred by litigants (appellants or respondents) when instituting, maintaining, or defending an appeal, as well as interlocutory applications that can or cannot be made to the Supreme Court.
The Registry, initially seated in Lagos, was open from 8am to 1pm, Monday to Friday, and 8am to 11am on Saturdays. Sundays and public holidays in Lagos were exempt. This schedule remained unchanged until the recent review, which didn’t address the Registry’s physical location in Abuja as a matter of specifics. The Registry’s business hours now run from 8am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, excluding national public holidays. Electronic filing is also available 24/7, even on holidays.
Service of court processes poses jurisdictional issues, as parties must be aware of documents filed against their interests. Serving certain individuals can be challenging due to their rank, location, or deliberate evasion. The 2024 Rules expand the definition of service addresses to include email, fax, GSM numbers, or other available communication modes.
Fees and costs are often confused, but they differ significantly. Fees are payments made to the Court for steps taken or to be taken by parties. Costs are payments extracted from a party to an appeal, payable to the adverse party or the Court. The new Rules retain the same fee provisions as the 1985 Rules, with amendments. Appellants in capital cases and Government agencies are exempt from paying fees; and poor persons may also be exempt, with conditions.
Notably, the new Rules (Order 12, Rules 3-7) explicitly stipulate the Supreme Court’s power to award costs in favor of a successful appellant, particularly against delays or frivolous appeals. These Rules set minimum costs for various scenarios and codify the power to award costs against counsel personally, with attendance sanctions for non-compliance. Counsel must obtain/prepare a certificate of compliance within 90 days of the award of such cost to avoid losing their right to appear before superior courts.
The issue of interlocutory applications to the Supreme Court is also addressed, particularly regarding regularizing one’s position before the Court. Set timelines are established for parties to take specific steps, such as filing notices of appeal, transmitting records, and submitting briefs. Failure to comply within the prescribed timeframe may result in the case or appeal lapsing without remedy.
Under the 2024 Rules, there are only two layers of inactivity allowed before a case or appeal lapses. Order 4, Rule 15(1) provides that the time for filing any process shall be automatically extended initially for the same period. A second extension may be granted with a penalty payment, but no further extensions shall be entertained except in appeals against death sentences. This innovation aims to reduce delays and abuse of court processes. However, it may have far-reaching consequences that potentially conflict with constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as those outlined in Section 6(6)(a & b) of the 1999 Constitution.
The enforcement mechanism for the aforementioned Order remains unclear. However, if left unaddressed, the Registry may eventually solely bear the responsibility of screening papers for filing in accordance with this Order. This could lead to a focus on counting calendar days without considering the facts and circumstances that only judicial discretion can discern.
Section 36(2)(a) of the Constitution mandates that an opportunity be provided for individuals whose rights and obligations may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before a decision is made. While it may seem convenient to have the Registry assist the Court in filtering out potentially lackadaisical cases or appeals, this approach could have severe consequences. An appeal pending determination on its merit (especially on final decisions from the Court of Appeal) should never be dismissed without a hearing. Although the right to fair hearing is not absolute, limitations must arise from a failure to explore opportunities to be heard. This opportunity should involve adequate representation (a motion showing reasons for departing from the rules) rather than a rigid count of calendar days.
In conclusion, Section 233(1) of the Constitution provides that an appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right, regarding decisions (final judgments) in civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. A whimsical application of Order 4 Rule 15 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024, without proper constitutional integration and alignment with existing constitutional provisions, undermines the supremacy clause of the Constitution. In the interim, the Supreme Court may find recourse in Order 22 Rule 1 of the new Rules, mitigating the effects of Order 4 Rule 15 in deserving cases by entertaining motions for extension of time, even after the periods stipulated in Order 4.
Q & A – The Lawyer’s Feedback
Hello Barrister,
I have a tenant in my basement whose rent has expired and he has refused to renew or pack out. Few weeks to the expiration of his rent, he packed just a few items and locked up the apartment. I have been calling him since the expiration of the rent and it has been one story to another. The door is a Turkish security door that I would not be able to easily break even if I want to. Please advice on the legal steps I can take. Thank you.
Position of the Law
Hello, and thank you for your question. When it comes to landlord-tenant relationships, it’s essential to be cautious and hope for the best match. To avoid potential stress, ensure you have proper documentation, serve required notices, and have your lawyer oversee the situation.
Regarding your specific case, here are proposed steps to take:
1. Firstly, review the tenancy agreement to confirm it was for a fixed term (one year) and that the tenant completed the full term. Sometimes, landlords use random samples without consulting lawyers, which can lead to issues with serving quit notices.
2. In cases of periodic tenancy, to evict a tenant, the law typically requires serving a quit notice (ranging from one week to six months) before terminating the rent, ensuring the notice expires at the end of the tenure.
3. Assuming the tenant was given the space for a fixed term (one year) and the rent has expired, the tenant is entitled to a 7-Day Notice of Owner’s Intention to Recover Possession.
4. If the tenant fails to vacate within seven days of receiving the notice, you may proceed to court to file a tenancy matter and obtain eviction orders, arrears of rent, and mesne profit (a prorated sum due from the date you approached the court until the final judgment).
5. Armed with a court order, you can have the tenant removed, with the possibility of obtaining a warrant of possession or writ of execution to seize their properties for auction to recover outstanding fees.
6. You should not need to forcibly remove the tenant and should have no concerns about their compliance with the court order. If they fail to surrender the keys willingly, you can have them arrested, cited for contempt, and possibly imprisoned.
Yours truly, JD
***
Readers and followers are advised to keep the questions coming and don’t be discouraged if I am yet to pick and answer yours. The questions are picked randomly. So keep sending them in through all of my official channels of communication as disclosed in this column (jdaniel.nig@gmail.com; twitter @attorney_ng and Whatsapp +234 802 746 2264)
Did you know that…
Periodically, almost yearly for some time now, the government embarks on tax reform to set the tone for the country’s tax drive. The 2024/25 fiscal plans (Nigeria Tax Bill, 2024, popularly referred to as the Tax Reform Bill) have created tension because they are being analyzed for potential regional biases. Notably, the bill, after thorough scrutiny and necessary modification, can be allowed passage, and any traces of discrimination during implementation can be tested against Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides that:
(1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person—
(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action, of the government to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, circumstance of birth, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject ; or
(b) be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions.