Lagos judiciary tackles delay with new rules

Delay is the most notorious challenge of the justice sector in
Nigeria. The courts today are suffocating under the weight of huge
backlog of old cases; yet on a daily basis, new ones are being
filed.

With only 59 judges and 122 magistrates serving a population of
over 20 million people, Lagos State is the worst hit with delayed
justice.

While litigants wait endlessly to get justice, the judges
contend with overflowing dockets.

An administraticve judge in the state, Justice Kazeem Alogba, on
Tuesday, captured the plight of his colleagues when he said,
“Sometimes in my humble position as an admin judge, it pains me a
lot because at a time, you could give one judge 50 files and within
the week more cases are filed; you’d still send more files to that
judge. What miracle do you expect a judge to perform in such
circumstances?”

Earlier on Monday, during the church service to herald the
2018/2019 legal year, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode said for Lagos
State, which is seen as Africa’s economic hub, delayed justice was
not healthy.

It hurts the economy by scaring off investors.

Ambode urged the stakeholders in the justice sector to put heads
together and come up with an innovative solution.

In furtherance of efforts to tackle the menace of delayed
justice, the state’s Chief Judge, Justice Opeyemi Oke, on Tuesday
convened a summit to apprise lawyers of innovations about to be
introduced into the state’s Civil Procedure Rules to curb
delays.

The innovations, she said, would come into effect from January
2019.

Justice Alogba, who chaired the committee that reviewed the
Civil Procedure Rules 2012, said things could just not continue the
old way.

He said while judges could not be absolved of blames, lawyers
were mostly responsible for delays.

As a result, he said, new provisions had been introduced into
the Civil Procedure Rules to check excesses by lawyers.

The judge said, “We have taken a very strong position about
delays in the prosecution of cases. We have introduced a new
regime, a new manner of approach in our response to delay of cases
in court.

“We have now decided that in view of the congestion of cases in
our courts and the yearning of the public for better service,
delays will not be tolerated any longer.”

Scuttle trial, get N100,000 fine

Justice Alogba said to discourage lawyers who scuttle trial
dates at will, monetary penalties had been introduced.

He said, “One of the provisions we have introduced is that
except in very exceptional circumstances, no trial will be
adjourned. We have come up with a provision that if you scuttle any
trial date, the minimum cost will be N100,000.

“Also for interlocutory proceedings, if you unjustifiably
scuttle the hearing of an interlocutory application on the date of
hearing, the minimum cost will be N50,000.

“We have emphasied the word ‘minimum’ because what is involved
in different cases differ. A case in which a witness has had to
travel from Europe, from Asia to attend proceedings and then you
just say, ‘I lost my father-in-law yesterday’, and so you scuttle
such a hearing date, I’m sure you will not expect a N100,000.”

In the same vein, Justice Alogba said the fine for defaulting in
the filing of processes had been increased from N200 per day to
N1,000 per day.

He said, “Because of the weakness of naira, the default fee of
N200 per day no longer means anything to many people, compared to
what you can achieve by the delay; where a party knows that what he
is achieving by the delay is much more valuable to him than N200
per day, he will delay.

“So, without being arbitrary, we have increased the defualt fee
to N1000 per day. We have very good reasons for that and you will
realise that the cost of providing infrastructure too has increased
over the years.

“So, when you set the machinery of the court in motion and then
you delay it again, we expect that there has to be some sanction.
The justice sector is not a money-making machine, we realise that.
But there is nothing we can do to satisfy the yearnings of the
stakeholders without ensuring that the processes and facilities we
put in place are well used and timeously too. So, that has
necessitated that change.”

Written address now limited to 20 pages

Justice Alogba said the job of the judges had been made more
difficult by lawyers who write endless written addresses. As such,
he said the judges had decided to limit all written addresses to 20
pages and reply on point-of-law to five pages.

He said, “Most of these judges came in very beautiful and
handsome but after five years, they’d become enemies of the barbing
salon because of your voluminous written addresses.

“Most of these written addresses are, with due respect,
unnecessarily lengthy. We have found out that most of what is
contained in the written addresses do not necessarily need to be
there. They could be more precise and in that way you’ll save the
judges the headache of having to read everything because we labour
to read everything.”

He said reducing the length of written addresses would enable
judges to thoroughly read the documents and help them to reach just
decisions.

“At times, what will be in aid of your case is hidden in one
particular paragraph. When these things are too voluminous and the
judge is battling with the timeline of the NJC, the judge must
write his judgment and he still must go to court and sit the
following day, there is a likelihood that he may not be able to
read everything and we (judges) want to be able to assure ourselves
that we have critically assessed everything you put before us
before coming back with a judgment.

“For that reason, we have now decided that written addresses
will be limited to 20 pages.

“We have provided only for just five pages for reply on
point-of-law,” he said.

Substituted service to be done by all verifiable electronic
means

Justice Alogba said the court had decided to use technology to
defeat difficulties being encountered in serving court processes on
unwilling parties.

He said, “We appreciate the problems faced in the process of
serving court processes but at the same time we do not want that to
be latched onto by people who do not like to prosecute their cases
diligently to their own advantage.

“So, we have decided that the issue of service must be taken
seriously. We have made new provisions for substituted service.

“Apart from the traditional provisions that we have made, we
have now latched onto emerging trends in technology. All means of
electronic communication, once verifiable, will be allowed in proof
of service of processes. This is to ensure that difficulty in
service is no longer a reason for delays in our courts.”

The judge said the new provision would stop a situation where
fundamental human rights cases that are meant to be heard speedily
last for years in court.

He said, “The law provides the limit within which fundamental
human rights cases must be done and completed.

“Six months in the life of a case, we are still talking about
inability to serve and time keeps running such that fundamental
human rights cases last two years, sometimes more, in court. And
when you file your returns, and the supervising authorities see a
fundamental human right case that has spent three years before a
judge, they’ll ask, ‘What was he doing?’ As if it was the fault of
the judge.”

Video conferencing

Justice Alogba said the reviewed Civil Procedure Rules has now
made provisions for the use of video conferencing to take evidence
of witnesses who are out of the court’s jurisdiction.

He said some of the judges were already practising it and others
will key in.

He said, “We have also made provisions for video conferencing in
the taking of evidence in our courts. A few of my brother judges
have practicalised that in some proceedings in their courts. As of
now, we don’t have a generalised infrastructure for it but in the
way we have done it, we can start like that and build on it and
when we have infrastructure from government, it will be a general
thing in all the courts and probably in our magistrates’ courts
too.”

One of the judges, Justice Lateefa Okunnu, who had used Skype to
take the testimony of a witness who was away in Canada, described
the experience as seamless.

Sharing her experience during the summit, Justice Okunnu said,
“The witness brought an application for her evidence to be taken
electronically; the application was not opposed and it was
granted.

“So, with the assistance of the Judicial Information Service we
brought in the gadgets. We had a little network problem, which is
normal and hopefullly that is beyond the judiciary. But eventually,
it was set up and the court recorder was also taking her recording
and transcribing at the same time.

“The witness was sworn in by my registrar legal, who said to her
that she had to affirm because we did not know if she carried any
Quaran or Bible where she was. And so, she was led in evidence,
cross-examined and re-examined.

“Apart from the technical hitches, it went smoothly and
seamlessly. Now, judgment has been reserved and this happened
within a period of about three to four months.”

Banire hails new rules

Reacting to the new rules, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr Muiz
Banire, said they showed that the judiciary had now decided to
tackle delay headlong rather than continue to treat it with kid’s
gloves.

“Today, it will appear as if we now mean business with respect
to dealing with congestion in our courts. Most of the blame lies
with us, the lawyers; but we cannot, in all honesty, completely
exonerate members of the bench. That is the reality,” he said.

He said rather than for judges to continue to default in the
resumption time of 9am, resumption should be shifted to 10am.

Banire said it was also in the interest of lawyers that delay
was removed and public confidence restored in the judiciary.

“With what is happening today, I must thank My Lord, the
Honourable CJ and the members of the committee; it seems now that
we are serious.

“For us lawyers, it is about rule of self-preservation because
if litigants continue to lose confidence in the system, nobody will
patronise us again and we are in danger,” he added.

Nigeria must learn from Singapore, Malaysia, England examples,
says CJ

The Chief Judge, Justice Oke, said it was time judges took
firmer stand on adjournment as being down in developed
jurisdictions.

“I will use the example of Malaysia and Singapore. Adjournment
is only on a matter of life and death, probably you are on a life
support. It is not tolerated at all and that is why Singapore is
number one when it comes to how fast you can get justice.

“We were all in Malaysia three years ago and the Chief Justice
of that country told us that they don’t tolerate adjournments, only
in a matter of life and death.

“When a matter is fixed for trial, counsel must keep that date.
We all go out to other jurisdictions but the problem we have is our
culture, the niceness, what people will say etc and this is why I
said that we need to look into the American jurisdiction to really
help us.

“The things that we tolerate here are not tolerated in Europe,
they are not tolerated in America, so why do we tolerate them here?
We want a replica of what we see abroad here. That is the way we
can grow and be respected out of jurisdiction,” the CJ said.

She challenged lawyers to shape up, saying the Nigerian
judiciary should copy the English model where a lawyer will be
liable to a £5,000 fine or risk losing his practising licence where
he files unmeritorious applications before the court.

“If we don’t save this profession, there may never be legal
profession in the future. We have travelled enough, we know what is
happening in other countries, we have to be firm,” Justice Oke
said.