On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in a case involving the immediate past governor of the state, Nasir El-Rufai, citing a violation of his right to a fair hearing.
In a ruling delivered in appeal number CA/K/240/2024, the appellate court held that the proceedings of July 18, 2024, were fundamentally defective, as the appellant was not properly served with a hearing notice.
The court also said that it found that El-Rufai was denied the opportunity to respond to the respondents’ counter-affidavit, describing the development as a breach of his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Delivering its ruling on March 17, the court nullified the judgment delivered on July 30, 2024, by Justice R.M. Aikawa, declaring it void for lack of jurisdiction. It further ordered that the case be returned to the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge for a fresh hearing.
READ ALSO:
New Telegraph recalls that El-Rufai had approached the Federal High Court in 2024, seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights, alleging that the Kaduna State House of Assembly denied him a fair hearing during investigations into his administration.
However, despite an earlier adjournment, the trial court proceeded to hear the matter on July 18 without notifying him.
In his absence, the court granted the respondents’ application for extension of time, entertained the substantive suit, and declined jurisdiction on the basis that the issues raised extended beyond fundamental rights enforcement. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Kaduna State High Court.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, El-Rufai, through his counsel, A.U. Mustapha (SAN), filed an appeal, arguing that the case was heard without proper notice and that he was denied the opportunity to fully present his case.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal stressed that proper service of a hearing notice is a fundamental requirement that affects the validity of court proceedings. It held that there was no evidence that the appellant was duly served and faulted the trial court for proceeding under such circumstances.
The appellate court further held that under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, the appellant was entitled to file a further affidavit and respond on points of law after the respondents regularised their processes. Denying him that opportunity, the court ruled, amounted to a clear breach of due process.
The case will now be reheard at the Federal High Court before a different judge.
