The Kaduna Division of the Court of Appeal has set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in a fundamental human rights suit filed by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, ordering a fresh hearing before a different judge.
In a unanimous ruling delivered on March 17, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that the lower court proceedings violated the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The panel, comprising Justices Onyekachi Otisi, Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo, and Sybil Gbagi, nullified the entire proceedings and judgment earlier delivered on July 30, 2024.
The appeal, marked CA/K/240/2024, was filed by El-Rufai against the Kaduna State House of Assembly and the state’s Attorney General, following a dispute arising from an investigation into the financial activities of the Kaduna State Government between May 2015 and May 2023.
An ad hoc committee of the Assembly had probed loans, contracts, and other transactions during the period and subsequently indicted the former governor over an alleged ₦400 billion fraud.
Challenging the outcome, El-Rufai approached the Federal High Court, arguing that although about 70 individuals were invited by the committee, he was not given an opportunity to appear before it, yet recommendations were made against him.
However, the trial court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Kaduna State High Court, prompting the appeal.
In the lead judgment, Justice Otisi held that there was no credible evidence that the appellant was properly served with a hearing notice, a fundamental requirement for fair hearing.
“The lower court ought to have insisted on acceptable proof of service,” the court ruled, stressing that such proof must be backed by an affidavit or other verifiable documentation.
The appellate court rejected the respondents’ claim that notice was served via a text message to the appellant’s counsel, noting discrepancies in the phone numbers presented. It also faulted reliance on oral claims by a court registrar without documentary evidence.
The court held that failure to properly serve hearing notice deprived El-Rufai of the opportunity to respond to key filings, including a counter-affidavit relied upon by the trial court.
It further ruled that proceeding with the case on the same day the respondents’ processes were deemed filed denied the appellant the statutory time required to respond, thereby compounding the breach of fair hearing.
Describing the proceedings as fundamentally flawed, the court declared them null and void.
“Failure to serve court process goes to the root of the case. Where a party has not been served, the proceedings are a nullity, however well conducted,” the court held.
The appellate court consequently ordered a fresh hearing of the suit before another judge of the Federal High Court, directing all parties to bear their respective costs.
In their concurring opinions, Justices Obaseki-Adejumo and Gbagi affirmed the decision, emphasising the duty of courts to ensure strict compliance with service procedures and uphold the principles of fair hearing.
