[ad_1]
SUNDAY EJIKE previews the move by the leadership of the Federal High Court to ensure pre-election cases, are expeditiously determined.
The leadership of the Federal High Court has made a sweeping change to how pre-election cases are determined as the country heads into a high-stake general election next year. It issued a comprehensive practice direction, to “provide for a fair, impartial and expeditious determination of pre-election cases”, among others.
The policy, will drive, the hearing and determination of pre-election suits.
The practice direction, came on heels of the broad policy from the National Judicial Council (NJC) on the handling of election-related matters, focused on preventing conflicting decisions from courts. It particularly contained rules on how heads of courts and judges must handle decided suits, by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, John Tsoho, in a circular dated July 7, 2022, was quoted to have exercised his powers as enshrined in the Nigerian constitution and the Electoral Act (as amended) in issuing the new practice directions for the hearing and determination of pre-election matters ahead of the general elections scheduled for February and March, next year.
The circular signed by the Assistant Director of information of the Federal High Court, Dr. Catherine Christopher, explained that the “Practice Directions shall apply to every pre-election matter brought pursuant to provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended).”
New Direction.
Justice Tsoho, in issuing the policy, was exercising the power conferred on him as the Chief Judge by section 254, 285 (9), (10) and (14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Sections 29(5) and 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended) and all other powers enabling him in that behalf. He added that the focus is to;
*Provide for a fair, impartial and expeditious determination of pre-election cases;
*Ensure that in all election matters, the parties focus on matters which are genuinely in issue;
*Minimize the time spent in dealing with interlocutory matters;
*Ensure that the possibility of settlement is explored before the parties go into hearing;
*Minimize undue adjournments and delays in the conduct of matters.
According to the circular, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court may direct that matters be transferred to the appropriate division or any other division of the court as may be reasonably practicable, considering the given circumstances.
It further stated “Every pre-election matter shall be commenced by an Originating Summons as specified in Forms 3, 4 or 5 of Appendix 6 to the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, with such variations as circumstances may require,” among other procedures of filings.
To tame the endemic problem of conflicting court orders due to multiplicity of cases on similar issues, the policy, now compels litigants’ lawyers to file “an affidavit of non- multiplicity of action on the same subject matter.
“To ensure speedy dispensation of justice, electronic mail and other electronic means may be employed by the court in order to inform counsel of urgent Court case events,” the guidelines stipulated.
While the institution pledged “to accord priority to all pre-election matters until judgment is delivered,” it warned that it would not take the absence of a party in a suit lightly, saying, “Where a matter comes up for hearing under this Practice Directions and either of the parties is absent, the Court shall either suo motu or upon oral application by the Counsel for the party present, order that the address of the party absent be deemed adopted if it is satisfied that the parties had notice of proceedings.
“The Court and the parties shall prevent unnecessary delays and accordingly, not more than two adjournments shall be granted to any party to an action covered by the provisions of the Practice Directions.”
It further provided that, no application for adjournment shall be entertained on a day fixed for hearing and where a party seeks to change his Counsel during the lifespan of a case, not more than two adjournments shall be granted to him to so do.
What to know about the Rules.
According to its Rule Two; The Practice Directions shall apply to every pre-election matter brought pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended).
It shall apply notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, amended), the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court may direct that matters be transferred to the appropriate Division or any other Division as may be reasonably practicable considering the given circumstances.
Under Rule Three; A party challenging the conduct or outcome of a Primary Election shall join as a Respondent in the suit, the person who emerged winner of the said election or whose name was forwarded by his political party to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Rule Four deals with filing of processes and it states that: Every pre-election matter shall be commenced by an Originating Summons as specified in Forms 3, 4 or 5 of Appendix 6 to the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, with such variations as circumstances may require.
The Originating Summons shall be accompanied by:
- a) An affidavit setting out the facts relied upon;
- b) Copies of exhibits to be relied upon;
- c) A written address;
- d) An affidavit of non-multiplicity of action on the same subject matter.
It further states that, “a Respondent served with an Originating Summons shall within seven days from the date of service of Originating Summons on him, file the original copy of duly completed and signed Memorandum of Appearances as specified in Form 11 Appendix 6 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules with such modification or variations as the circumstances may require.
“A Respondent served with an Originating Summons shall within ten days of such service, file in the Registry of the Court, a counter affidavit and a written address, which may include any Preliminary Objection raised to the action.
“An Applicant on whom a Respondent serves a defence, if the need arises, shall serve a Reply on that Respondent within three days of such service.
“The Written Address shall be concise, typed in double spacing with font size of 12; numbered consecutively and shall not exceed fifteen pages.
“Any amendment to the Originating Summons may be made with the leave of Court within seven days of service of the Respondent’s Reply.
“All suits wherein the cause of action arose in a Judicial Division and the relief seeks a declaration or to compel or restrain person(s), natural or legal within that Judicial Division, with no consequence outside it, shall be filed received or heard only within that Judicial Division.
“Provided that in other suits, in so far as the relief sought, or potential consequential order(s) or declaration(s) extend beyond the Judicial Division, shall be filed or received at Abuja and assigned by the Chief Judge.
“In all other matters, as may require the attention of the Chief Judge, he may in the appropriate circumstance assign same to an appropriate Judicial Division.”
Service of Process.
On service of process, the Guidelines said;
“A party shall not serve a notice of an application on another party on the date scheduled for hearing.
“To ensure speedy dispensation of justice, electronic mail and other electronic means may be employed by the Court in order to inform counsel of urgent Court case events. Provided that such notification shall be given at least forty-eight hours before the scheduled Court date.
“In line with the provision of Rule 5(2) of the Rule, parties are expected to furnish the Court Registrar with functional telephone numbers and email addresses of themselves and their counsel and an application for substituted service shall be as provided for in the Rules of this Court.”
Under Rule Six, the policy provides that;
*Upon the close of exchange of processes between the parties, the Court shall within seven days, set down the matters for hearing.
*The Court shall continue to accord priority to all pre-election matters until judgment is delivered.
*Where a matter comes up for hearing and either of the parties is absent, the Court shall either suo motu or upon oral application by the Counsel for the party present, order that the address of the party absent be deemed adopted if it is satisfied that the parties had notice of proceedings.
*The Court and the parties shall prevent unnecessary delays and accordingly, not more than two adjournments shall be granted to any party to an action covered by the provisions of the Practice Directions, provided that, no application for adjournment shall be entertained on a day fixed for hearing.
*Where a party seeks to change his Counsel during the lifespan of a case, not more than two adjournments shall be granted to him to so do.
*Where it is expedient, and in furtherance of the objectives of this Practice directions, the Court may schedule the time and date of hearing on such day and at such time as may be convenient for the parties.
*Counsel shall ensure that they are present in Court and ready to proceed with their case at all times.
*Where the provisions of the Rule 6(7) of the Rule becomes impracticable by reason of ill-health or any other unavoidable incidence, such Counsel shall ensure that a Counsel of requisite knowledge of the issues before the Court is present in Court and ready to proceed with the case in his or her stead or apply that the case be heard virtually where practicable; with the consent of parties.
Interlocutory applications.
On the vexed issue of interlocutory applications, the new practice guide says; *Every application for Interlocutory Orders shall be on Notice, stating the Rule under which it is brought, the grounds for the reliefs sought and shall be supported by an Affidavit and a Written Address.
*The Respondent(s) upon being served with the processes, shall have five days within which to file processes in response (if any) to the Motion on Notice and the Applicant shall have three days to file a Reply (if any) to the processes of the Respondent(s).
*Pursuant to the provision of Section 285(8) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ruling on Preliminary Objections and other interlocutory issues touching on the jurisdiction of the Court shall be suspended and delivered at the stage of final judgment;
provided that, where the objection relates to service of originating processes, the Court shall satisfy itself that the parties have been properly served before proceeding to determine the substantive suit.
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
*Every application for extension of time shall be by a Motion on Notice and shall be supported by an Affidavit setting forth good, substantial, cogent and verifiable reasons for failure to file within the prescribed period before time can be extended.
Rule Eight, which deals with miscellaneous, states that, the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 shall apply to any issue not captured under the new Practice Directions, adding that, under the Practice Directions, pre- election matters are matters as defined by Section 285 (14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Justice Tsoho said, in the circular that, the Practice Directions may be cited as the Federal High Court (Pre- Election) Practice Directions, 2022 and becoming effective on Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2022.
The new policy, according to some lawyers, is meant to serve as a guide to potential litigants and judges on certain rules to be observed in handling pre-election matters as defined by Section 285(14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
[ad_2]
