Court docket of Attraction upholds El-Rufai proper to honest listening to in go well with in opposition to the Kaduna Meeting
The Court docket of Attraction has upheld the correct of Malam Nasir @elrufai to honest listening to and nullified the judgment of Justice R.M. Aikawa of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Kaduna. Ruling within the matter of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai versus the Kaduna State Home of Meeting (CA/Ok/240/2024), the court docket held that the failure of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Kaduna, to serve El-Rufai with the listening to discover and the denial of his proper to file a response to the counter affidavit of the respondents amounted to a denial of honest listening to.
The Court docket of Attraction due to this fact nullified the proceedings of 18th July 2024, and put aside the judgment of the Federal Excessive Court docket delivered on 30 July 2024 for need of jurisdiction. The Court docket of Attraction additionally ordered that the go well with be remitted to the Federal Excessive Court docket for reassignment to a different choose who’s to listen to the case afresh.
El-Rufai had in 2024 filed a basic rights enforcement motion in opposition to the Kaduna State Home of Meeting over the denial of honest listening to in its investigations. Throughout the proceedings, the trial court docket adjourned the matter however later proceeded to listen to it on 18th July 2024 with out correct service of listening to discover on El-Rufai.
In his absence, the court docket granted the respondent’s software for extension of time, heard the substantive go well with instantly, and denied El-Rufai the chance to reply to the counter-affidavit and written handle of the respondents.
In a judgment on 30 July 2024, Justice R.M. Aikawa declined jurisdiction to entertain El-Rufai’s go well with on the bottom that the principal reliefs went past basic rights enforcement and as a substitute challenged the powers of the Kaduna State Home of Meeting. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Kaduna State Excessive Court docket.
Dissatisfied with the choice, El-Rufai, by way of his lawyer AU Mustapha SAN, filed an attraction. He contended that the matter was heard throughout trip with none software and that the trial choose refused to recuse himself regardless of a request to take action.
On the substantive attraction, the Court docket of Attraction adopted a sole concern for dedication, specifically:
“Whether or not the judgment/ruling of the Federal Excessive Court docket delivered on 18 July 2024 was made with out jurisdiction”.
In resolving this concern, the Court docket of Attraction thought of two central questions. (i) Situation of Service and (ii) Failure to permit the Appellant to file a Additional Affidavit.
On the problem of service of listening to discover, the Court docket held that the bailiff has an obligation to serve listening to discover on events and has no discretion to decide on who to serve. It emphasised that solely the contact particulars provided by the events of their processes are legitimate for service, and it’s immaterial whether or not a celebration may have been reached by way of different means not offered.
The Court docket of Attraction additional held that there was no affidavit of service evidencing that the Appellant was served with the listening to discover, and that the trial court docket must have glad itself as to correct service earlier than continuing. The Court docket reiterated that service of listening to discover is prime to the court docket’s jurisdiction and can’t be handled as a mere technicality. The failure to serve the Appellant with listening to discover for the proceedings of 18th July 2024 rendered the complete proceedings a nullity.
On the second concern, regarding the failure to permit the Appellant file an extra affidavit and reply on factors of legislation, the Court docket famous that the Respondent’s counter-affidavit was filed out of time and solely regularised on 18th July 2024. By advantage of Order 2 Rule 7 of the Elementary Rights (Enforcement Process) Guidelines, the Appellant was entitled, if he so desired, to file an extra affidavit and reply on factors of legislation inside 5 (5) days from the date of such regularisation. The Court docket held that the trial court docket had no discretion to disclaim the Appellant this chance.