The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna has ordered a fresh trial in the fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, in connection with an alleged N400 billion fraud case.
In a judgment delivered on March 17, the appellate court set aside the earlier ruling of the Federal High Court and directed that the matter be reassigned to another judge for a fresh hearing. The court held that the previous proceedings were fundamentally flawed and violated El-Rufai’s constitutional right to fair hearing.
The case originated from an investigation by the Kaduna State House of Assembly, which constituted an ad hoc committee to probe the financial activities of the state government between 2015 and 2023. The panel subsequently indicted El-Rufai over allegations of mismanagement involving about N400 billion.
Following the indictment, Nasir El-Rufai approached the Federal High Court, challenging the findings of the legislative panel. He argued that he was never invited to appear before the committee, despite the fact that other individuals were summoned during the investigation. According to him, the panel reached conclusions against him without offering him an opportunity to defend himself.
However, the trial court declined jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Kaduna State High Court, a decision that prompted El-Rufai to file an appeal.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal found that there was no credible evidence to show that El-Rufai had been properly served with a hearing notice. The court emphasized that proper service of court processes is a fundamental requirement for any valid judicial proceeding.
“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 held.
The respondents had claimed that a hearing notice was sent via text message to El-Rufai’s legal representative. However, the appellate court rejected this argument, citing inconsistencies in the phone numbers provided and a lack of verifiable evidence to support the claim.
The court also faulted the reliance on oral testimony by a court official without proper documentation, noting that such an approach falls short of established legal standards.
According to the judgment, the failure to properly serve hearing notice denied El-Rufai the opportunity to respond to critical filings, including a counter-affidavit that was used against him during the proceedings.
“Failure to serve court process, such as a hearing notice, goes to the root of the case. It is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction,” the court stated.
In addition, the appellate court criticized the speed with which the lower court handled the case. It noted that the trial court proceeded to determine the matter on the same day it accepted the respondents’ filings, without granting El-Rufai sufficient time to respond to new legal arguments.
The court stressed that parties must be given adequate time to address issues raised in court, particularly those involving points of law, adding that such procedural safeguards are essential to ensuring justice.
Describing the entire process as defective, the court declared the earlier proceedings null and void. It subsequently ordered that the case be heard afresh before a different judge of the Federal High Court to ensure fairness and due process.
The appellate court also directed all parties involved to bear their respective legal costs.
In separate concurring judgments, other justices on the panel aligned with the lead ruling, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules, especially in matters involving fundamental rights.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on fair hearing as a cornerstone of justice, reaffirming that any breach of due process—particularly failure to properly notify parties—can invalidate entire proceedings regardless of the merits of the case.
