The Court of Appeal Nigeria has set aside a previous judgment in a fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, ordering that the case be retried before a different judge.
In a unanimous ruling delivered on March 17, the appellate court nullified the earlier decision of the Federal High Court, citing a violation of the appellant’s right to fair hearing.
The panel, led by Justice Onyekachi Otisi alongside Justices Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo and Sybil Gbagi, ruled that the lower court failed to ensure proper service of hearing notices on El-Rufai.
“The lower court ought to have insisted on the production of acceptable proof of service to ascertain that the appellant was indeed served with hearing notice,” the court held.
The case originated from a probe by the Kaduna State House of Assembly into financial dealings, loans, and contracts of the state government between May 29, 2015, and May 29, 2023, which reportedly indicted the former governor over an alleged N400bn fraud.
El-Rufai had challenged the process, arguing that despite multiple individuals being invited, he was not given the opportunity to appear before the panel before conclusions were reached.
However, the trial court declined jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the state high court—a move that triggered the appeal.
In its judgment, the appellate court stressed the importance of proper notification in legal proceedings.
“There is no gainsaying the fact that service of process on a party to a proceeding is fundamental because it is what confers competence and jurisdiction on the court seized of the matter.”
The court also dismissed claims that notice was served via text message, noting inconsistencies in the phone numbers presented as evidence.
“The phone number deposed to did not correspond with any of the numbers contained in the appellant’s originating processes,” the court observed.
It further faulted reliance on verbal claims without documentary backing, insisting that proof of service must be supported by affidavits or credible records.
“Failure to serve court process, such as a hearing notice, goes to the root of the case. It is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction.
“Where a party has not been served with hearing notice, the proceedings are a nullity, however well conducted and decided,” the court held.
Describing the earlier proceedings as flawed, the court ruled that El-Rufai was denied the opportunity to respond adequately, including the required time to file legal replies.
“What happened was far more than a mere refusal of an application for adjournment. This is because it resulted in a denial of the fundamental right of fair hearing.”
The appellate court concluded by declaring the entire proceedings invalid and ordered a fresh hearing of the case at the Federal High Court, with all parties to bear their own costs.
