THE Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Kaduna Division, has nullified the judgment of the Federal High Court in a fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, and ordered a fresh hearing before another judge.
News Point Nigeria Weekend reports that in a unanimous judgment delivered on March 17, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that the earlier proceedings were conducted in violation of the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing.
The panel, comprising Justices Onyekachi Otisi, Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo, and Sybil Gbagi, set aside the entire proceedings and judgment delivered by the lower court 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 Attorney General.
At the heart of the dispute was an investigation conducted by an ad hoc committee of the Assembly into financial activities, loans, and contracts of the Kaduna State Government between May 29, 2015, and May 29, 2023.
The committee had indicted the former governor over an alleged N400 billion fraud.
Dissatisfied with the findings, El-Rufai approached the Federal High Court, arguing that his fundamental rights were violated.
He maintained that although about 70 individuals were invited to appear before the committee, he was not invited, yet the panel proceeded to issue recommendations affecting him.
However, the trial court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Kaduna State High Court, a decision that prompted the appeal.
In the lead judgment, Justice Otisi identified the key issue as whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter without proper service of hearing notice on the appellant.
The appellate court ruled that there was no credible evidence that El-Rufai was duly served.
“The lower court ought to have insisted on acceptable proof of service to ascertain that the appellant was indeed served,” the court held.
It emphasised that proof of service must be established through an affidavit or other verifiable documentation.
The respondents had claimed that a hearing notice was served via a text message sent to the appellant’s counsel.
However, the court rejected the argument, noting inconsistencies in the phone numbers presented.
“The phone number relied upon did not correspond with any of the numbers contained in the appellant’s originating processes,” the court observed.
It also criticised reliance on oral assertions by a court registrar without documentary backing, describing such an approach as legally insufficient.
The court held that failure to properly serve hearing notices deprived El-Rufai of the opportunity to participate in proceedings and respond to filings, including a counter-affidavit relied upon by the trial court.
“Failure to serve court process goes to the root of the case. It is a condition precedent to jurisdiction,” the court ruled.
It added that any proceedings conducted without proper service are null and void, regardless of how well they were carried out.
The appellate court further faulted the trial court for proceeding to hear and determine the substantive matter on the same day it deemed the respondents’ processes properly filed.
It noted that El-Rufai was entitled to a statutory period of five days to respond on points of law, stressing that the lower court had no discretion to shorten that timeline.
Describing the process as fundamentally flawed, Justice Otisi said the situation went beyond a mere refusal of adjournment and amounted to a clear denial of fair hearing.
Having established a breach of constitutional rights, the appellate court declared the entire proceedings null and void.
It subsequently ordered a fresh hearing (de novo) before another judge of the Federal High Court.
The court also directed all parties to bear their respective costs.
In their concurring opinions, Justices Obaseki-Adejumo and Gbagi upheld the lead judgment.
Justice Obaseki-Adejumo stressed the importance of proper service of court processes, warning against assumptions or reliance on unverified claims.
Similarly, Justice Gbagi described the appeal as meritorious and endorsed the order for a retrial.
The ruling effectively resets the legal battle surrounding the allegations against El-Rufai, reopening proceedings that could have significant political and legal implications.