The Court of Appeal has affirmed the constitutional right to fair hearing of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, nullifying the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Kaduna over his dispute with the Kaduna State House of Assembly.
In its ruling on the appeal marked CA/K/240/2024, the appellate court held that the lower court breached the appellant’s right to fair hearing.
The court held that the lower court failed to serve him with a hearing notice, denying him the opportunity to respond to processes filed by the respondents.
Background to the Case
The case originated from a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed in 2024 by El-Rufai against the Kaduna State House of Assembly.
The former governor challenged the Assembly’s investigative actions, alleging that they violated his right to fair hearing.
During proceedings at the Federal High Court, Kaduna, presided over by R. M. Aikawa, the matter was adjourned but later heard on July 18, 2024, without proper service of hearing notice on El-Rufai.
In his absence, the trial court granted the respondents’ application for extension of time and proceeded to hear the substantive suit.
The court, thus, denied the applicant the opportunity to respond to the counter-affidavit and written address.
Subsequently, in a judgment delivered on July 30, 2024, Justice Aikawa declined jurisdiction, ruling that the claims extended beyond fundamental rights enforcement and encroached on the legislative powers of the Kaduna State House of Assembly.
The matter was then transferred to the Kaduna State High Court.
Appeal and Legal Arguments
Dissatisfied with the decision, El-Rufai, through his counsel A. U. Mustapha, approached the Court of Appeal, challenging both the procedure and jurisdiction of the trial court.
He argued that:
-
The case was heard during court vacation without a formal application
-
He was not served with a hearing notice
-
The trial judge refused to recuse himself despite a request
The appellant urged the appellate court to determine whether the proceedings and judgment of July 18, 2024, were conducted without jurisdiction.
Court of Appeal’s Findings
In resolving the appeal, the Court of Appeal adopted a sole issue for determination—whether the lower court acted without jurisdiction.
On the issue of service, the court held that:
-
Service of hearing notice is a fundamental requirement for jurisdiction
-
A court must ensure proper service before proceeding
-
There was no affidavit of service confirming that El-Rufai was duly notified
The appellate court stressed that a bailiff has a mandatory duty to serve all parties and cannot selectively choose whom to serve.
It further noted that only the contact details officially provided in court filings are valid for service.
The court concluded that the failure to serve the appellant rendered the entire proceedings of July 18, 2024, a nullity.
Denial of Opportunity to Respond
On the second issue, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred by denying El-Rufai the opportunity to file a further affidavit and reply on points of law.
It held that since the respondents’ counter-affidavit was filed out of time and only regularised on July 18, 2024, the appellant was entitled under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules to respond within five days.
The court emphasized that the trial judge had no discretion to deny this right, describing the failure as a clear violation of fair hearing principles.
Orders of the Court
Consequently, the Court of Appeal:
-
Nullified the proceedings of July 18, 2024
-
Set aside the judgment delivered on July 30, 2024
-
Held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction due to procedural defects
-
Ordered that the case be remitted to the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge
Implications
The ruling reinforces the centrality of fair hearing in judicial proceedings and underscores that procedural compliance—particularly service of court processes—is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional requirement.
Legal analysts note that the decision may have broader implications for cases involving legislative investigations and fundamental rights enforcement, especially where procedural safeguards are overlooked.
The case is now expected to be reheard afresh before a different judge of the Federal High Court.
