The Supreme Court Rules of 1985 were first introduced to regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, providing a structured framework to ensure cases at the highest level of the judiciary are handled efficiently. Prior to the introduction of the 1985 Rules, there was an urgent need for a standardized procedural system to guide the handling of appeals and other matters brought before the Court. The absence of such a structure often leads to inconsistencies, delays, and confusion among litigants. The 1985 Rules were developed to address these challenges, providing clear and practical guidelines on how cases should be initiated, managed, and adjudicated.
These rules were intended to streamline the judicial process, promote fairness, and enhance the delivery of justice by removing procedural bottlenecks. The legal foundation for these rules is anchored in Section 236 of Nigeria’s 1979 Constitution, which vested the Supreme Court (referred to hereafter as “the Court”) with the authority to govern its own procedures.
This constitutional provision empowered the Court to independently formulate rules essential for its smooth operation, ensuring that its activities adhered to the principles of justice, efficiency, and transparency.
The 1985 rules of the Supreme Court at that time addressed the growing backlog of cases, ensuring timely and organized delivery of justice. Key elements included specific instructions for filing appeals, presenting arguments, managing court documents, and conducting hearings. These procedural updates not only reduced delays but also ensured that litigants could access the Court fairly and efficiently.
Additionally, they outlined the roles and responsibilities of parties during court proceedings, fostering greater accountability in the legal process. Despite the initial success, the 1985 Rules eventually became outdated, especially as Nigeria’s legal environment evolved. Nearly four decades after their inception, the rise of digital transactions, globalization, and the complexities of modern litigation exposed limitations in the old procedural framework. For example, the old rules governing civil and criminal motions were prone to causing procedural delays, hampering the Court’s ability to handle cases efficiently. As workloads grew, the Court found it increasingly difficult to cope, leading to delays in case resolution and a gradual erosion of public confidence in the judiciary
Over the years, temporary practice directions had been issued to address specific needs, but these piecemeal updates were insufficient.
A comprehensive revision was necessary to align the Court’s operations with modern realities and ensure that justice is delivered efficiently and transparently. To address these challenges and keep pace with contemporary demands, the Supreme Court introduced Supreme Court Rules 2024.
These new rules aim to modernize judicial processes and promote efficiency by incorporating technological innovations such as electronic filing systems and digital case management.
Additionally, the reforms introduce stricter timelines for case handling, ensuring that proceedings are faster and more predictable with minimal delays.
The new rules were officially approved by the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, on August 1, 2024. The 2024 Supreme Court Rules introduced significant changes designed to enhance judicial efficiency and modernize court operations.
According to the rules, an Appeal means the entry of an appeal after the record of the case has been transmitted from the lower court.
This can be seen in Order 1 Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules, which is unlike the former 1985 rules, which defined an appeal to include an application for leave to appeal. This change indicates that applications for an injunction pending appeal, a stay of execution, or a stay of proceedings may now depend on the appeal being formally registered in the Supreme Court’s registry.
The mere filing of a notice of appeal or an application for leave to appeal may no longer suffice to establish a valid appeal for these applications. Now, proceedings can only be paused in limited circumstances involving a stay of execution, provided specific conditions are satisfied. This reform targets the misuse of interlocutory appeals, which some lawyers exploit to prolong trials.
Another significant update is the new comprehensive e-filing system that was introduced.
Most processes will be served electronically, and virtual hearing protocols have been laid out for ease of hearing and cost savings for litigants. Additionally, legal practitioners now face new responsibilities.
The time allowed for filing processes out of time is granted automatically for two times and at the third and last time, the default will be paid. When the last period expires, the leave cannot be sought; you leave the matter for God.
Order 3 Rule 3 of the 2024 Supreme Court Rules introduces a crucial obligation for legal practitioners who receive a notice of appeal or any other process on behalf of a client that they no longer represent. Under this provision, such practitioners must notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court within seven days of service that they are no longer authorized to accept service on behalf of that party.
Failure to promptly notify the court when a lawyer no longer represents a party will now be treated as professional misconduct. Also, parties must file a notice of non-contention if they do not intend to contest an application.
Rule 1 of Order 3 defines address for service, providing “that any reference to an address for service within or outside the Federal Republic of Nigeria means a physical, postal, or electronic mail address, a GSM telephone number or any other available mode of communication where notices, summonses, warrants, proceedings and other documents, etc. may be left, sent, posted or transmitted if not required to be served personally. The abolition of stays of proceedings for interlocutory appeals marks a significant shift in curbing delays in lower courts.
To address abusive legal tactics, the new rules introduce punitive costs, setting a minimum fine of 2 million naira for frivolous appeals or conduct that causes unnecessary delays. Lawyers who persist in such practices risk losing their right to appear before the court.
These reforms represent a much-needed modernization after nearly four decades of reliance on the outdated 1985 rules. More than just procedural updates, the new rules aim to address systemic inefficiencies, discourage the abuse of court processes, and foster public trust in the judiciary.
By emphasizing efficiency and accountability, the rules seek to enhance the effectiveness of the legal system, reduce delays, and ensure that court proceedings remain predictable and fair. One of the most impactful changes is the abolition of automatic stays for interlocutory appeals, enabling lower courts to continue proceedings without interruption. This reform addresses the common tactic of filing interlocutory appeals to stall trials, thereby expediting case resolution.
In addition, the imposition of punitive fines on lawyers engaging in frivolous appeals or delay tactics is expected to be a game-changer, deterring conduct that has historically undermined the legal process.
Further, the new rules increase the accountability of legal practitioners by tightening timelines for filing briefs and limiting automatic extensions to a single instance. Penalties for late submissions underscore the judiciary’s commitment to timely justice, addressing long-standing criticisms regarding delays. These changes ensure that court procedures remain predictable and streamlined, benefiting both the litigants and the justice delivery system.
The reforms also emphasize access to justice, particularly through provisions aimed at supporting indigent litigants, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in protecting vulnerable members of society and promoting inclusivity in the legal process. As the judiciary embraces these changes, it is expected that the Nigerian legal system will become more effective, transparent, and respected, paving the way for a new era of justice delivery.
Source: BarristerNG
