In the courts’ system, apart from the judges and other staff of the court, lawyers are also officers of the court and as Ministers in the temple of justice. Therefore, the progress and development of the court should be of concern to lawyers. More so, the legal system is everyday developed in the courts especially up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Therefore, it is very important that every court of law should use the period of resumption from the annual vacation such as the current vacation, to take and or welcome recommendations, criticisms, suggestions, etc. for the development of the court and the courts’ system as a whole. It is this same mind that this paper has in mind in recommending some few recommendations for improvements in the Nigerian Courts and the courts’ system. First and foremost, it is humbly recommended that all public facilities, such as the toilets, separate toilets for males and females, sophisticated toilets materials, seats for waiting or queuing members of the court who require or visit the court for one reason or the other, should be checked and improved upon. The writer of this paper has observed that some courts, such as the federal high court Headquarters, Abuja, have commenced the painting of some of the internal court’s building in preparation for the annual legal year, however, there is need for such courts to also pay considerate attention to those facilities enjoyed by the members of the public. Furthermore, it is humbly recommended that all HOCs should review the Rules of the Court especially, and inclusive of the fees chargeable for all services required by the litigants or applicants or lawyers. The issues of unlawful fees charged for some services whereas no service would have been rendered still continue to persist as if nothing is done wrong. This have been in practice and with due respect, HOCs seem to have paid no listening hears to the dissatisfaction of the members of the public to such illegal fees. For instance, all applications are now required to be paid for including applications made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 2011-herein after referred to as the FOIA, in reliance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s decision in the case of THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NIGERIA V JOHN ASUQUO ETIM (2017) 13 NWLR (PART 1581) 1 SC. The writer of this paper had written to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Headquarters, who is the HOC of all federal high courts in Nigeria, and the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory Headquarters as the HOC of all High Courts in the Federal capital Territory, Abuja, on this position on applications to courts in relation to the decision of the Supreme Court’s decision (supra). In his humble submissions, the writer of this paper had submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court has been wrongly misconstrued and misapplied as to the requirements of payments for such applications whereas, no service has been rendered as at the time of payment for such applications and that the rules of the court have no provisions for such fees and assuming without conceding that the rules have such provisions, they would have been in violation with the provisions of a statute which is the FOIA in section 8, which stipulates mandatorily, what fees to be paid for as follows ‘Fees shall be limited to standard charges for document duplication and Fees transcription where necessary’. The writer of this paper in fact, attached his letters to the Chief Judges respectively, with a photocopy of the decision of the Supreme Court under discourse. It is noteworthy that such applications are only received in the federal high court upon payment of the sum of one hundred naira only (N100.00) while in the Abuja High Court, it is the sum of one thousand naira only (N1,000.00) without any legal basis! I humbly submit! The writer of this paper humbly observed at paragraph 6 of his letters as follows: ‘My Lord, the Supreme Court at page 39-40, paragraphs E-A, I.T. Muhammad, J.S.C., while noting some errors on the said letter of adjournment which was one of the cruxes of the appeal, held thus ‘It is to be noted that : i. this letter (document) does not bear the semblance of an official communication between the learned counsel and the trial court official. Nothing to indicate that the letter was officially filed at the court’s registry: no stamp; no date; no signature and name of the receptionist, no time of filing the letter in the registry and no assessment in any form by the registry; … (Underlining is mine for emphasis). My Lord, the Supreme Court further held at page 41, paragraph E-B which I humbly submit as the reason for the Supreme Court to have held that the application ought to have been filed, thus ‘It is important to point out as well, that if a document is meant for the court to take note and act thereon, rules of court have made provisions for formal filing of such a document or documents with the registry of the court, for which a nominal fee is payable upon assessment by the registry staff, who authenticate the filing of that document and proceed to file same for the court’s attention. It is only by formal filing when the court becomes seised of the document. All other ways or methods such as writing letters or petitions informing the Chief Judge/Chief Justice/Head of Court and or Chief Registrar (including his subordinate registrars) are purely administrative and have no force of law. (Underlining is mine for emphasis). Thus, the said letter written by the Respondent to the registrar of the trial court was purely administrative, and worse still, it was never brought to the attention of the learned trial judge for consideration. To cap it all, Order 54 rule 6 of the Cross Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (supra), provides as follows: ‘A document shall not be filed unless it has indorsed on it the name and number of the cause, the date of filing) and whether filed by plaintiff or defendant, and on being filed such indorsement shall be initialed by the Registrar’. The letter claimed by the respondent to be placed with the registrar of the trial court, was never subjected to such criteria as provided by the Civil Procedure Rules (cited above). I have all reasons to believe therefore, that the said letter cannot be regarded as a legal document. Even if it is placed before the learned trial Judge, the best the learned trial Judge could do was to discountenance it’. In conclusion on those letters, the writer of this paper concluded and recommended as follows : My Lord, from the above provisions of the Laws, the Constitution, the Rules of this Court and the decision of the Supreme Court (supra), I hereby most humbly submit as follows that:
- the decision of the Supreme Court did not decide to the effect that applications for administrative purposes are to be filed and paid for;
- the Rules of this Court do not provide that applications for administrative purposes are to be filed and paid for;
- the provisions of the FOIA have exempted applications to access information from being filed and paid for and is only limited to standard charges for document duplication and Fees transcription where necessary;
- The notion and or belief as well as the act of refusal by the Court’s registry and the Courts unless and until the said application is filed and paid for even where such application is administrative in nature or for administrative purposes relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the above referenced case, is misconstrued and perverse;
- Applications for hearing date, applications for hearing notice to be issued addressed to the Court’s registrar, applications for: Certified True Copies of Judgment/Ruling, records of proceedings, enrolled Order of Court, etc. are administrative in nature and need not be filed and paid for by the applicant.
NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)
Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.