The toll is often heavy for parties who delay proceedings by missing court dates without prior notice to the judge, but lawyers are worried that when the bench – usually via a court registry oversight – is to blame, the parties have no remedy and are left to suffer the consequences of judicial delay alone. They suggest that a better organised court registry can help to check this aspect of delay, ROBERT EGBE reports.
Although Adeshina Ogunlana had been practising law for years in Lagos, he had never appeared before the Sagamu High Court in Ogun State before.
So, the former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja branch looked forward to visiting the court when the opportunity presented itself on January 24, 2022.
Leaving Lagos at first light, he and his team of counsel arrived in Sagamu before 8am for a new matter.
But things did not go as planned. At the end of the day, Ogunlana recounted his experiences.
He said they arrived in Court 4, where the matter was scheduled to be heard, “as early as 7:45am from Lagos, only to be informed by the Registrar of the court at about 8:50am that the Honourable Trial Judge (Owodunni J) was away with other judges to Abeokuta, the state capital for a biometrics capture exercise.
“The registrar further informed us that the Honourable Judge had directed counsel who turned up for matters to take dates for adjournments of their matters or stay behind as the court would still hold later in the day.
“Regrettably, the registrar could only launch into a voyage of speculation and ‘guess estimation’ as to the time sessions would commence.”
Ogunlana said they, their clients and the other lawyers who met the same fate were “aghast” at the development.
“Our client and our good selves had come at great cost, inconvenience and risks to court. We were not alone, we saw no less than about 60 other persons (counsel, litigants, criminal defendants etc) in the premises left judicially but not, in our respectful view, judiciously stranded,” he added.
Ogunlana’s experience is not new for many who interact with the judiciary. Lawyers and litigants across the country have long complained about similar occurrences.
For instance, despite its consistent pace-setting status in justice delivery reform, the Lagos judiciary – Nigeria’s busiest – is sometimes associated with this occurrence.
Last Tuesday, parties gathered at the Lagos Hight Court sitting in Ikoyi for their respective court sessions.
The court was, as usual, expected to sit at 9am, but at about 10 minutes past 8am, everyone was informed that Justice Taofiquat Oyekan-Abdullahi’s court would not be sitting for the day.
One of the matters affected by the announcement was that between the Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Regina Omoloto Wright and Star Properties Ltd.
The parties are, among other things, seeking judicial resolution of their dispute about the annual rent being paid by the firm for a Lagos Island property.
One of the parties alleged that the same thing happened the last time the matter was supposed to be heard.
“The same thing happened last year when the court was supposed to sit – our lawyer and representatives were already in court before being told the judge was not going to attend. It is sad how they keep cancelling the court dates, and more worryingly waiting till the actual day before informing us of the cancellation – after a long wait,” the party told The Nation.
Old problem
Stakeholders generally agree that these two examples are only one aspect of the longstanding causes of judicial delay and that parties themselves are, perhaps, as or even more guilty of foisting a delay of proceedings on the court by their unscheduled absence.
For instance, last Thursday, the absence of Justice Donatus Okorowo of a Federal High Court, Abuja, stalled the hearing of a suit filed by a group against the police over the suspension of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Abba Kyari.
Although counsel to the applicant, the Incorporated Trustees of Northern Peace Foundation, Hamza N’Dantani, was in court, the court registrar apologised over the inability of the judge to sit.
The matter, which was on number six on the cause list, was however fixed for April 4, 2022, for hearing.
However, at the last adjourned date of January 12, when the matter came up for the first time, the judge was present but could not proceed, due to the absence of counsel to the plaintiff and the respondents in the suit.
Is petition the answer?
Where such delays are the fault of the parties or their counsel through their absence without leave of court, it is usual for the court to sanction the defaulting party.
The sanction could take the form of fines, foreclosure of right to be heard, revocation of the defendant’s bail if it is a criminal matter, etc.
However, when the court is to blame, lawyers and litigants seem to be powerless.
But not Ogunlana. Soon after he was notified that the court would not sit, the Lagos-based lawyer complained to the Chief Judge of Ogun State.
His petition, written same day, reads in part: “We are miffed that no prior notice of this development was served on counsel, not a particular arduous task, in our humble view, in this age of easy telephony, to avoid or at least minimise a waste of time, resources, exertion and a rude dash of expectations.
“We were also surprised that the biometric capture exercise that took away honorable judges from their crucial assignment could take place only on a top work day and the prime hours of same. We believe the arrangement of the exercise can be made or scheduled in such ways to minimise a subordination of judicial responsibilities.
“Sir, we are aware that a lot of our institutions all over the country are in a rut. But it is our considered view that the Judiciary is special, is GOLD and must not join the obnoxious cascade of public service ineptitude in the land. All efforts should be made to ensure, maintain and sustain the Judiciary as a highly respected, highly performing service delivery institution.”
Ogunlana’s effort to bring a change just might work, because three days later, the Ogun State Chief Judge, Justice M. Dipeolu, promised to look into the matter.
A letter on the CJ’s behalf by the Chief Registrar, Mrs O. O Odubanjo reads in part: “I have the directive of My Lord, the Honorable the Chief Judge, Hon. Justice M. Dipeolu, FICMC, to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 25 January, 2022 and to inform you that it is receiving attention. Please accept the assurances of My Lord the Honourable the Chief Judge’s wammest regards.”
Case for court registries reform
Many stakeholders believe situations such as the above are largely avoidable if court registries are better organised.
Like Ogunlana pointed out and as is increasingly the practice in Lagos and some other courts around the country, technology could be better deployed to communicate dates with parties when the court won’t sit, except, of course, the judge’s absence is due to an emergency.
A former Vice Chancellor of the Lagos State University (LASU), Prof. Olanrewaju Fagbohun (SAN), identified weaknesses in courts’ registries as responsible for unacceptable delays and other problems in justice administration.
He made his argument last November in a paper titled “Implementing Justice Sector Reforms in Nigeria: Connecting the Disconnect”.
According to him, court registries have not seen as much justice sector reforms as is necessary for them to adequately perform their duties
Fagbohun said: “They (Court Registrars) are on daily basis faced with a large amount of judicial work. They initiate administrative actions that have a continuing responsibility for results, yet, most of them do not fully understand the functioning of the justice sector and how crucial their role is in it.
“The system relies for success on their consistency, equality of treatment and of the service they render, and the certainty of rules and principles on which their respective administrative departments rely in their daily use.
“Where they mis-act and exhibit administrative lawlessness, the court system is brought into disrepute and ridicule.”
He highlighted his assertions with several examples.
- a) Registrars who receive applications from litigants’ counsel and other members of the public, but fail to lodge same in the court’s file, thereby frustrating scheduled court proceedings;
- b) Registrars who fail to communicate changes in the schedule of court despite having the email and phone numbers of counsel on file;
- c) Registrars who engage in manipulation of litigants and other members of the public with a view to extorting them;
- d) Registrars who fail to properly keep and arrange the record of the court resulting in adjournment of scheduled proceedings;
- e) Court Bailiffs and Sheriffs who in breach of their mandatory duty and despite being “mobilised” failed to serve or fail to place in the court’s file relevant proof of service of court process thereby, frustrating cases from going on as scheduled;
- f) At the Appellate Court, Counsel submits several copies of court processes only to discover that the processes are not in the court’s file; and
- g) A non-contentious application is filed for extension of time yet, the Registrar routinely gives a return date of 6 to 12 months, thereby contributing to the backlog of cases.
How registrars can curb justice delay
Fagbohun made several proposals to check the problem.
He said: “The above and many more of such situations (which can make the difference between winning or losing a case, life and death, or impact successive generation) are daily occurrences in our courts.
“No one is held accountable for these seemingly minor infractions that have significant impact on the attainment of justice and business goes on as usual. Complaints against these forms of maladministration are not robustly addressed so much that persistent infraction of rules have become a culture. So, the question I ask is, could we not have a Deputy Chief Registrar Process Monitoring who can be held accountable for the failure of his unit? Could we not have a directive that all processes served must be in the record of the court within 48 hours?”
He argued further that achieving effectiveness in the Court Registry is realisable.
The Don noted that this already the case at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.
He said: “Its different divisions reflect excellence in the way court processes are managed, and judgment delivered electronically among others. This great model, which is worthy of study, underscores the point that a functionary’s positive attitude towards their role in the scheme of affairs is not a product of genetics and heredity.
“Again, I ask, could we not train Deputy Chief Registrars in the proper identification of reliefs on motion papers as to be able to deal with non-contentious issues? With proper training, appropriate monitoring and sanctions, we can get our court registries to effectively play their role in the implementation of justice sector reforms.”
E-Filing System
Fagbohun further canvassed the reliance on ICT as a way to enhance court registries.
He said: “As a rhetoric, our courts daily reiterate their recognition of the role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and that there is no going back on the digital revolution that will guarantee electronic filing and ultimately virtual proceedings in our court system.
“There is no gain saying the value addition that electronic case management and filing systems can bring to the justice sector. Deployed appropriately, it will bring high standard and overall good reputation to the judiciary.
“Regrettably, bringing technology to bear on Nigeria’s justice sector is fast becoming rocket science. Counsel and litigants spend days going through the process of e-filing. It has become another avenue for extortion with the promise of a speedy service that circumvents the e-filing queues that may stretch for days on end.
“The lack of quality control and monitoring, I dare say, are the twin factors that have given the use of technology a “bad name” in Nigeria’s justice sector. Consistent failures and instances of poor service in the use of technology are corrupting ICT adaptation and inverting its purpose in our justice sector.’’
