All practice
Directions mentioned in the post can be downloaded at the end of the post.
Please all opinions are those of the writer of the post
Welcome to my new post. The COVID-19
pandemic has literally affected every part of our lives and the Courts and
access to justice is not spared. There are quite a lot of literature online on
the next thing to happen with law practice, particularly litigation. Access to court
as guaranteed by Section 6 of the Constitution has been hit with a challenge –
the pandemic and the antecedent lockdown of courts and public gatherings. The use
of the word ‘public’ in my last sentence has a sort of tone to denote physical
presence, and would fall right in place with those who believe virtual proceedings
cannot be situated in Section 36 (3) of the Constitution. They therefore call
for an amendment before we go on. Afterall, cases like ALIMI &
ORS v. KOSEBINU & ORS (2016) LPELR-42557(SC) among other
cases of such nature have shown us the bitter part of it.
On the converse, dragging out
someone to the public on the internet is likened to the other side of ‘public’.
Anybody can see, react, talk about etc. This second view believes the Nigerian
Constitution wouldn’t be done any harm at all. We should just move right into
it. What if the Court in Alimi v. Kosebinu had announced that the public should
log onto a youtube channel while giving the judgment in Chambers? Sentiments
apart, the law is the law. And the law right now is that practice directions
have been issued, allowing for virtual court sittings. Not only that, the practice
directions have also brought a number of innovations to assist courts to
function during the lockdown while others offer long term goals in administration of justice. The fear
however is, which of these positions would the apex court adopt when it
presents itself for determination? And again, are we ready in terms of gadgets,
infrastructure, electricity?
The National Judicial Council
recently issued a directive on practice direction to be adopted by courts. This
came under heavy criticism as the Constitution had already provided for the
head of each court to enact its own rules. Again, the ensuing practice
directions have also come under scrutiny. There are concerns whether the
Practice Directions can alter the provisions of substantive Rules of Courts on
procedure, other legislation such as the Sheriff and Civil Process Act,
particular on service of court processes. While the Directive itself has not
mandated courts to take it hook line and sinker, the fact that the directive comes
from the highest judicial body in the Country makes it somewhat obligatory to
adopt. Courts of superior records have since began issuing practice directions
and just before we lost track of them all, I have decided to bring out salient
points from the ones that I have read so far. The following would therefore be
titbits from some of the practice directions. The purpose is not to make a wholesale
analysis on the documents, so please, don’t crucify me for the things I left
out! Importantly however, all the practice directions make provision for
precautionary measures, security and control of crowd.
High Court of Lagos State
The Practice Direction came into
force even before the NJC Guidelines. It should be noted however that the
provisions are in pari materia with other provisions derived from the Guidelines.
The key concept is to provide for precautionary measures during the pandemic
and to avoid total inaction during the lockdown. The following points are worthy
of note in the provisions of the Practice Directions:
·
Lifespan of the Practice Directions to only last
during COVID-19 lockdown
·
E-Filing to be adopted, use of designated email
addresses and whatsapp to be used
·
Time begins to run against the other party from
the date the process was sent
·
Parties / Counsel to liaise with the registry on
Scheduling of cases
·
Remote hearings to be adopted, links to be
pasted on official website for public to join
Quite apart from the COVID 19
regulations however, the Lagos State Judiciary has unveiled its JIS system
which is to take care of all remove filings and administration of justice from
clicks away. The JIS portal can be used to manage ongoing cases and file new
ones. Lawyers can apply to associate themselves to ongoing cases and get
updates via email. Details may be found at the Court’s official website.
High Court of Ogun State
The Ogun State Practice Direction
also came into force before the issuance of the NJC Guidelines. These
provisions, like that of Lagos State are also in line with the guidelines that
were eventually issued. The following are a few notes on the provisions;
·
Came
into force on 5th May, 2020
·
Lifespan
is not restricted to Covid-19 period
·
E-filing
to be adopted, - contact details to be
stated on processes
·
Documents
to be converted to pdf and sent to designated emails
·
Processes
deemed filed when payment is confirmed
·
Service
is effected when processes sent, verifiable by screenshots
·
Parties
to consent to remote hearing
·
Online
cause list
High Court of the Federal Capital
Territory
·
Came
into force on 11th May, 2020 and all courts are to resume
·
Lifespan
to run throughout covid-19
·
Excludes
24th March – 4th May 2020 in computation of time
·
Cases
requiring attendance of inmates is suspended, save for bail / remand
applications
·
Cases
on affidavit evidence to be by remote hearing
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT
·
Came
into force on 18th May, 2020
·
Lifespan
to run during and after COVID - 19
·
E-filing
to be adopted, 120 hours rule for hard copy documents – date of payment is
filing date
·
Dumping
of documents to be prevented, duty to
refer to specific areas in oaths to tie documents
·
Duty
on Nba for directory of Lawyers
·
E
service to be adopted
·
It
would amount to unprofessional conduct to have different electronic copy of a
document to the hard copy, duty to cross check. Hard copy suprecedes soft.
·
Cases
on affidavit evidence to be by remote hearing, while cases requiring oral
hearings should be avoided, save for time bound / urgent cases
·
Remote
hearing, option of recording for public upon application
·
Maximum
of one hour on each case, not more than 5 cases a day on cause list
·
Trial
on record if consented to by parties, order 38 rule 33
·
Matters
with multiple parties should not be listed
·
Lockdown
period not to count in computation of time
·
Letter
can be sent to adopt written address
Federal High Court
·
Came
into force on 18th May, 2020
·
Lifespan
to run throughout covid-19 period alone
·
Excludes
24th March – 4th May 2020 in computation of time
·
Precautionary
measures, avoid overcrowding
·
E-filing
as contained in the Rules of Court to be applied.
·
Hard
copies to spend 5 days before processing
·
Service
of processes to be by e-mail / whatsapp etc
·
Hard
copy takes precedence in cases of conflict
·
Not
more than 9 cases on causes list per day
·
Remote
hearings for criminal cases allowed, save for peculiar circumstances
·
Virtual
proceedings on zoom, skype, requires consent of parties
In sum, the courts have taken a huge leap into
making the administration of justice work, even during the lockdown and the gradual
ease of lockdown. The challenge of infrastructure is however still a big deal.
A simple survey of the websites of the Courts only show little Compliance with
these regulations on procedure. Some of the websites are yet to set up e filing
and causes lists are not accessible on some of the websites. Frequent inquiries
therefore needs to be made by lawyers and litigants alike.
You may download the files below.
Comments
Post a Comment
please be concise and constructive.