Olusegun ARIYO
The Court of Appeal has affirmed the right of Malam Nasir El-Rufai to a fair hearing, setting aside the judgment of Justice R.M. Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Kaduna.
The ruling came in the appeal filed by El-Rufai against the Kaduna State House of Assembly (CA/K/240/2024).
This was disclosed by the media adviser to El-Rufai, Muyiwa Adekeye, on Tuesday.
The appellate court held that the Federal High Court erred by proceeding with the hearing on 18th July 2024 without properly serving El-Rufai with notice and denying him the opportunity to respond to the respondents’ counter-affidavit.
As a result, the Court of Appeal nullified the proceedings of 18th July 2024 and set aside the judgment delivered on 30th July 2024 for lack of jurisdiction.
The matter has been remitted to the Federal High Court for reassignment to a different judge to hear the case afresh.
El-Rufai had filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit in 2024, challenging the Kaduna State House of Assembly over alleged denial of a fair hearing during its investigations.
The trial court initially adjourned the matter but later proceeded in his absence, granting the respondents’ applications and denying him the opportunity to respond.
In his appeal, El-Rufai, through his lawyer, AU Mustapha SAN, argued that the matter was improperly heard during vacation without any application and that the trial judge refused to recuse himself.
The Court of Appeal focused on two issues: (i) proper service of the hearing notice, and (ii) the denial of the opportunity to file a further affidavit.
On service, the court emphasised that only the contact details provided by the parties are valid for service of notice, and there was no evidence that El-Rufai was served.https://urbanexpresslive.com/epl-why-gary-neville-gives-arsenal-only-condition-to-win-title-ahead-of-man-city/
On the second issue, the court 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. The trial court had no discretion to deny this.https://urbanexpresslive.com/benfica-vs-real-madrid-you-have-taken-wrong-direction-for-justifying-racial-abuse-seedorf-on-mourinho/
The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to fair hearing and proper procedure, particularly in matters affecting fundamental rights.
