The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna has nullified the judgment of the Federal High Court in a suit filed by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, against the State House of Assembly, citing a breach of his right to a fair hearing.
In a ruling delivered in the appeal marked CA/K/240/2024, the appellate court held that the lower court proceedings conducted on July 18, 2024, were fundamentally flawed due to the failure to properly serve hearing notice on El-Rufai.
The court further found that the denial of an opportunity for the appellant to respond to the respondents’ counter-affidavit constituted a violation of his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment delivered on July 30, 2024, by Justice R.M. Aikawa, declaring it a nullity for lack of jurisdiction. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge for a fresh hearing.
READ ALSO: IGP Asks Court To Dismiss El-Rufai’s ₦1bn Enforcement Suit
El-Rufai approached the Federal High Court in 2024, seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights, alleging that the Kaduna State House of Assembly denied him a fair hearing in the course of its investigations. However, during the trial, the court adjourned the matter but proceeded to hear it on July 18 without proper notification to the former governor.
In his absence, the trial court granted the respondents’ application for extension of time, heard the substantive matter, and declined jurisdiction on the grounds that the claims extended beyond fundamental rights enforcement.
The case was subsequently transferred to the Kaduna State High Court.
Dissatisfied with the decision, El-Rufai, through his counsel, A.U. Mustapha (SAN), appealed the ruling, arguing, among other issues, that the matter was heard without proper notice and that he was denied the opportunity to fully present his case.
In resolving the appeal, the Court of Appeal emphasized that service of a hearing notice is a fundamental requirement that goes to the root of a court’s jurisdiction. It held that there was no evidence that El-Rufai was served and that the trial court failed in its duty to ensure proper service before proceeding.
Leave a Reply