RismadarVoice Reporters
March 21, 2026
The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna has set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in a fundamental human rights suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, and ordered a fresh hearing of the case before another judge.
In a unanimous decision delivered on March 17, a three-member panel of Justices Onyekachi Otisi, Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo, and Sybil Gbagi held that the proceedings of the lower court were conducted in breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing.
The Certified True Copy of the judgment showed that the appellate court nullified the entire proceedings and judgment delivered by the Federal High Court on July 30, 2024.
El-Rufai had appealed against the Kaduna State House of Assembly and the state Attorney General in a suit marked CA/K/240/2024, challenging the outcome of an investigation carried out by an ad hoc committee of the Assembly.
The committee had probed the financial activities, loans, and contracts of the Kaduna State Government between May 29, 2015, and May 29, 2023, and subsequently indicted the former governor over an alleged N400 billion fraud.
Dissatisfied with the process, El-Rufai approached the Federal High Court, contending that although about 70 individuals were invited by the committee, he was neither invited nor given an opportunity to defend himself before adverse findings were made against him.
However, the trial court declined jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Kaduna State High Court, prompting the appeal.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Otisi identified the central issue as whether the trial court had jurisdiction in the absence of proper service of hearing notice on the appellant.
The court held that there was no credible evidence that El-Rufai was duly served, stressing that proof of service must be established through an affidavit or other reliable documentary evidence.
“The lower court ought to have insisted on the production of acceptable proof of service to ascertain that the appellant was indeed served with hearing notice,” the court ruled.
The respondents had claimed that a hearing notice was communicated via a text message to counsel for the appellant, but the appellate court rejected the argument, citing discrepancies in the phone numbers used.
“The phone number deposed to did not correspond with any of the numbers contained in the appellant’s originating processes,” the court observed, adding that reliance on oral assertions by a court registrar without documentary backing was insufficient in law.
Justice Otisi emphasized that service of court processes is fundamental to the competence of a court, noting that failure to serve hearing notice goes to the root of the matter.
“Where a party has not been served with hearing notice, the proceedings are a nullity, however well conducted and decided,” the court held.
The appellate court further faulted the trial court for proceeding to hear and determine the substantive matter on the same day it deemed the respondents’ processes properly filed, thereby denying the appellant the statutory five days required to respond on points of law.
Describing the situation as a clear denial of fair hearing, the court maintained that while speedy dispensation of justice is desirable, it must not override constitutional safeguards.
Having found merit in the appeal, the court declared the entire proceedings null and void and ordered that the case be heard afresh before another judge of the Federal High Court.
It also directed all parties to bear their respective costs.
In their concurring judgments, Justices Obaseki-Adejumo and Gbagi affirmed the lead judgment, underscoring the necessity of strict compliance with rules of service and fair hearing in judicial proceedings.
