The Court of Appeal has affirmed the right of Malam Nasir El-Rufai to a fair hearing, overturning a judgment delivered by Justice R.M. Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Kaduna.
The ruling followed an appeal filed by El-Rufai against the Kaduna State House of Assembly (CA/K/240/2024), according to his media adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye.
The appellate court found that the Federal High Court erred by proceeding with the hearing on 18th July 2024 without properly serving El-Rufai with notice, effectively denying him the chance to respond to the respondents’ counter-affidavit. Consequently, the Court of Appeal nullified the proceedings of 18th July and set aside the judgment delivered on 30th July 2024 for lack of jurisdiction.
The case has now been remitted to the Federal High Court for reassignment to a different judge to hear the matter afresh.
El-Rufai had filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit earlier in 2024, challenging the Kaduna State House of Assembly over what he described as a denial of fair hearing during its investigations. The trial court had initially adjourned the matter but later proceeded in his absence, granting the respondents’ applications and refusing him the opportunity to reply.
In his appeal, El-Rufai, represented by AU Mustapha SAN, argued that the matter was improperly heard during vacation without any formal application and that the trial judge refused to recuse himself.
The Court of Appeal focused on two key issues: proper service of hearing notice and the denial of opportunity to file a further affidavit. The court emphasised that only contact details provided by parties are valid for notice, and there was no evidence that El-Rufai was served. It further held that, under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, El-Rufai was entitled to file a further affidavit and reply on points of law within five days—a right the trial court could not deny.
Legal experts say the judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair hearing and adherence to due process, particularly in matters affecting fundamental rights.
Comments