In litigation, the era of front loading has reduced the problems
confronted in Court by the Courts and litigants whereby hours will
be spent on one case where a litigant or his Counsel will have to
address the Courts verbally.
In the present litigation system, Rules of Courts both from the
lower courts to the Higher Courts of Records now mandate that
documents and or processes should be filed and all arguments
intended to be made by litigants either by themselves or through
their counsel should be made in written form and it has been the
position of law that arguments or averments not frontloaded go to
no issue and such shall then be discountenanced by the Court except
where the Rules of the Courts permit or there is leave of the Court
sought, may be to amend the defective process or to supply the
additional information as the court may deem fit and is granted,
hence, the omnibus relief contained on some of the courts’
processes.
While these processes are filed with great efforts and costs of
litigants or their counsel, there are Courts’ staff given the duty
to either keep the records or to serve some of the processes and
then file them in the courts’ file as proof of service of those
processes. In carrying out these responsibilities, some of those
courts’ staff negligently mis-handle some of those processes
leading to the loss of those processes, which is then detrimental
to the suit of the concerned litigant. Most of the times, some of
these negligent acts are discovered in the open court and the court
has, with due respect, always put all the blames on counsel without
necessarily blaming or disciplining the negligent staff, which
makes such negligence to continue to re-occur in our courts’
system. This paper considers the situation to be one that requires
urgent judicial intervention in order to forestall any
re-occurrence these negligent acts.
It has remained the situation in many or some of our courts
today at both trial and appellate judicial divisions to find some
of the courts’ staff such as the courts’ registry and the bailiffs
of the courts to be negligent with their duties to litigants and or
the Counsel who are customers of the courts. The point that the
writer of this paper is making is that some of these courts’ staff,
most especially some of the bailiffs of the courts, are really
handling their official duties carelessly and recklessly. For
instance, the writer of this paper of recent filed an appeal at the
Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, which is the
Court of Appeal of Nigeria’s Headquarters. By a circular posted on
some areas of the court, including the bailiff’s office/section,
counsel or litigants are to ensure that they get proof of the
services of their processes in their court’s file at least a week
before the day slated or fixed for the appeal (though this is not
the exact quotation, as the exact quotation was not available at
the time of writing this paper).
The writer of this paper then visited the court two (2) weeks
before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. However, there
were unsettled issues in relation to the records between the
records section and the court’s section-how could that even be! A
staff in charge of the preparation of the cause list in the court’s
section informed the writer of this paper that he should not worry
and that he (the court’s officer in charge) would settle the issues
and that there will not be any issue. He also asked the writer of
this paper to leave and that he should call him (the court’s staff)
the following week.
The writer of this paper informed him that he would travel to
Abia State for an official function that week and that that was why
he was very concerned about ensuring that all issues are settled
before his leaving. Then, while still in Abia State, the writer of
this paper called the said staff who disappointingly informed the
writer of this paper that he could not find the appeal case’s file
that was to come up for hearing the following week’s Tuesday. And
that was on the Friday before the Tuesday when the appeal was to
come up for hearing. The most surprising thing is that the record
section actually traced the case on the record and found out that
it was slated for a date (which will not be disclosed in this
paper), which is an indication that that court’s staff might not
have really worked on the case of the writer of this paper as
promised.
There is another attitude of some staff who do some little or
few works within their official capacity and then complain that
they have done all the works in this world. Whereas, the only thing
some of the staff know to do is to only use the port folio
of their office to brag such as ‘I am a staff of the Court of
Appeal of Nigeria!’ and then wait to receive salary at the end of
the month. The writer of this paper had to return back to Abuja
that Sunday following the Friday (two days after) so as to be in
the Court to confirm the information of the court’s staff. When the
writer of this paper returned to the court, the date was then
confirmed.
The court’s bailiffs too did their own part of the negligence.
Since the previous two weeks that the writer of this paper visited
the court, he was assured that all the processes were safe and that
he should not worry, even a day to the hearing date, this was still
their assurances. However, on the day of the hearing, they
disappointed the writer of this paper and made him to run around to
ensure that his matter was not affected by the negligence of the
court’s staff, because, the court’s bailiffs had to confess that
they could not find the proofs of service of the Appellant’s Brief
of Argument served on the Respondents and that of the motion on
notice, which were served by two (2) bailiffs respectively. They
had to then only depose to an affidavit that day when the matter
was to come up for hearing. Also, the court’s copies of the
Appellants’ processes were not found in the court’s file. The
court’s staff then requested some other copies from the writer of
this paper and asked him to also release an amount of money to run
some photocopies to be used as replacement in the court’s file. In
fact, according to another lawyer’s story that day, he was
previously called by court’s staff that his matter would come up
that day but only for him to discover that it was not even slated
on the cause list!
Most unfortunately, some of these staff get away with their
negligent conducts without any sanction rather, it is the litigants
that have always been sanctioned by the court, with due respect,
and all the blames are shifted on the litigants or their counsel.
In fact, when some of these complaints are made in the open court
or discovered in the open court, some of them stylishly run out of
court in order to hide their misconducts. That is why the writer of
this paper is calling on the courts to ensure that courts’ staff
carry out their duties accordingly and not to hesitate to sanction
the erred ones.
The request for whistle blowing on these negligent conducts by
litigants and lawyers at every court will also be of great
importance in curbing those negligent conducts.
Finally therefore, it is the belief of the writer of this paper
that the appropriate court or each court will put in more measures
in curbing negligence of these court’s staff in the interest of
justice and that of the public. And it is believed that the courts
or judges too will intervene in saving the situation from
re-occurring.
e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com
In litigation, the era of front loading has reduced the problems
confronted in Court by the Courts and litigants whereby hours will
be spent on one case where a litigant or his Counsel will have to
address the Courts verbally.
In the present litigation system, Rules of Courts both from the
lower courts to the Higher Courts of Records now mandate that
documents and or processes should be filed and all arguments
intended to be made by litigants either by themselves or through
their counsel should be made in written form and it has been the
position of law that arguments or averments not frontloaded go to
no issue and such shall then be discountenanced by the Court except
where the Rules of the Courts permit or there is leave of the Court
sought, may be to amend the defective process or to supply the
additional information as the court may deem fit and is granted,
hence, the omnibus relief contained on some of the courts’
processes.
While these processes are filed with great efforts and costs of
litigants or their counsel, there are Courts’ staff given the duty
to either keep the records or to serve some of the processes and
then file them in the courts’ file as proof of service of those
processes. In carrying out these responsibilities, some of those
courts’ staff negligently mis-handle some of those processes
leading to the loss of those processes, which is then detrimental
to the suit of the concerned litigant. Most of the times, some of
these negligent acts are discovered in the open court and the court
has, with due respect, always put all the blames on counsel without
necessarily blaming or disciplining the negligent staff, which
makes such negligence to continue to re-occur in our courts’
system. This paper considers the situation to be one that requires
urgent judicial intervention in order to forestall any
re-occurrence these negligent acts.
It has remained the situation in many or some of our courts
today at both trial and appellate judicial divisions to find some
of the courts’ staff such as the courts’ registry and the bailiffs
of the courts to be negligent with their duties to litigants and or
the Counsel who are customers of the courts. The point that the
writer of this paper is making is that some of these courts’ staff,
most especially some of the bailiffs of the courts, are really
handling their official duties carelessly and recklessly. For
instance, the writer of this paper of recent filed an appeal at the
Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, which is the
Court of Appeal of Nigeria’s Headquarters. By a circular posted on
some areas of the court, including the bailiff’s office/section,
counsel or litigants are to ensure that they get proof of the
services of their processes in their court’s file at least a week
before the day slated or fixed for the appeal (though this is not
the exact quotation, as the exact quotation was not available at
the time of writing this paper).
The writer of this paper then visited the court two (2) weeks
before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. However, there
were unsettled issues in relation to the records between the
records section and the court’s section-how could that even be! A
staff in charge of the preparation of the cause list in the court’s
section informed the writer of this paper that he should not worry
and that he (the court’s officer in charge) would settle the issues
and that there will not be any issue. He also asked the writer of
this paper to leave and that he should call him (the court’s staff)
the following week.
The writer of this paper informed him that he would travel to
Abia State for an official function that week and that that was why
he was very concerned about ensuring that all issues are settled
before his leaving. Then, while still in Abia State, the writer of
this paper called the said staff who disappointingly informed the
writer of this paper that he could not find the appeal case’s file
that was to come up for hearing the following week’s Tuesday. And
that was on the Friday before the Tuesday when the appeal was to
come up for hearing. The most surprising thing is that the record
section actually traced the case on the record and found out that
it was slated for a date (which will not be disclosed in this
paper), which is an indication that that court’s staff might not
have really worked on the case of the writer of this paper as
promised.
There is another attitude of some staff who do some little or
few works within their official capacity and then complain that
they have done all the works in this world. Whereas, the only thing
some of the staff know to do is to only use the port folio
of their office to brag such as ‘I am a staff of the Court of
Appeal of Nigeria!’ and then wait to receive salary at the end of
the month. The writer of this paper had to return back to Abuja
that Sunday following the Friday (two days after) so as to be in
the Court to confirm the information of the court’s staff. When the
writer of this paper returned to the court, the date was then
confirmed.
The court’s bailiffs too did their own part of the negligence.
Since the previous two weeks that the writer of this paper visited
the court, he was assured that all the processes were safe and that
he should not worry, even a day to the hearing date, this was still
their assurances. However, on the day of the hearing, they
disappointed the writer of this paper and made him to run around to
ensure that his matter was not affected by the negligence of the
court’s staff, because, the court’s bailiffs had to confess that
they could not find the proofs of service of the Appellant’s Brief
of Argument served on the Respondents and that of the motion on
notice, which were served by two (2) bailiffs respectively. They
had to then only depose to an affidavit that day when the matter
was to come up for hearing. Also, the court’s copies of the
Appellants’ processes were not found in the court’s file. The
court’s staff then requested some other copies from the writer of
this paper and asked him to also release an amount of money to run
some photocopies to be used as replacement in the court’s file. In
fact, according to another lawyer’s story that day, he was
previously called by court’s staff that his matter would come up
that day but only for him to discover that it was not even slated
on the cause list!
Most unfortunately, some of these staff get away with their
negligent conducts without any sanction rather, it is the litigants
that have always been sanctioned by the court, with due respect,
and all the blames are shifted on the litigants or their counsel.
In fact, when some of these complaints are made in the open court
or discovered in the open court, some of them stylishly run out of
court in order to hide their misconducts. That is why the writer of
this paper is calling on the courts to ensure that courts’ staff
carry out their duties accordingly and not to hesitate to sanction
the erred ones.
The request for whistle blowing on these negligent conducts by
litigants and lawyers at every court will also be of great
importance in curbing those negligent conducts.
Finally therefore, it is the belief of the writer of this paper
that the appropriate court or each court will put in more measures
in curbing negligence of these court’s staff in the interest of
justice and that of the public. And it is believed that the courts
or judges too will intervene in saving the situation from
re-occurring.
e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com