The “New SC Rules” or the “New Rules”, a substantial departure from the outdated Supreme Court Rules of 1985 (the “Old SC Rules”), introduce significant reforms to practice and procedures at the Supreme Court (the “Court”). With a broader scope encompassing 22 Orders, compared to the previous 10 in the Old SC Rules, the New Rules prioritize efficiency, technological integration, and streamlined processes to enhance the user experience for both litigants and legal professionals.
These Rules not only introduce innovative concepts such as electronic filing, virtual hearings, and a Case Management System, but also substantially modify existing procedures, including those related to service of processes, hearing of applications in chambers, timelines for filing, and administration of costs. These reforms aim to create a more agile and responsive legal system, capable of addressing the contemporary challenges faced by the Court.
In this detailed review, we dissect each Order of the New SC Rules examining how they expand upon or depart from the Old SC Rules. We spotlight the innovative provisions, assess their practical impact on practice and procedure in the Court, and discuss their broader impact on litigants, legal practitioners, and administration of justice in general.
Key Innovations of the New Rules
Order 1 - General Definitions
Order 1 of the New Rules offers a comprehensive definition of terms used in the Rules, aiming to improve clarity in the understanding and application of the Rules. In contrast to the Old SC Rules, which defined only a handful of terms, the New Rules introduce a broader universe of defined terms. Notable additions to the defined terms include Applicant, Bailiff, Cause, and Indigent Person as well as Electronic Media, Electronic Device and Recording, reflecting the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the growing role of technology in legal proceedings.
In addition to introducing new defined terms, the New SC Rules also revises and expands the definitions of certain terms that were originally included in the Old SC Rules. For instance, under the Old SC Rules, an appeal included an application for leave to appeal. However, the New SC Rules defines an appeal as ‘entry of Appeal after the record of appeal has been transmitted from the Court below’.
Under the Old SC Rules, the broader definition of 'appeal' allowed the Supreme Court to consider applications for leave to appeal as valid and pending appeals, upon which a party seeking stay of execution(1), stay of proceedings or an injunction pending appeal can predicate such applications. However, the New SC Rules' more restrictive definition of ‘appeal’ might suggest that unless an appeal has been entered at the Supreme Court after the record of appeal has been transmitted from the Court of Appeal within the time allowed by the New Rules or such time extended by the Court, there is no pending appeal. On this view, the ability of parties to seek stays based solely on applications for leave to appeal could be potentially constrained, thereby limiting the opportunity to seek preservatory injunctions before leave is granted. While the New SC Rules have significantly improved clarity for practitioners, the narrower definition of 'appeal' could have negative consequences for applicants who require urgent preservation of their rights before leave to appeal is granted. The New SC Rules also broadened the definition of "record" beyond the limitations of the Old SC Rules, which previously referred only to physical files. Under the New Rules, records can now include electronic devices as well as paper documents.
Another important addition is the introduction of a Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the New Rules will prevail over any conflicting Rules of Practice(2). This centralises authority and reduces ambiguity in instances where other procedural rules may otherwise conflict.
Order 2 – Administration
Unlike the broader scope of Order 2 in the Old SC Rules, which covered administration, general procedure, service, fees and applications, Order 2 of the New SC Rules focuses solely on administrative matters and introduces significant changes aimed at aligning the administration of the Supreme Court with global best practices.
Whilst the Old SC Rules only recognised a physical version of the Supreme Court's Seal and required physical files for pleadings and documents in relation to an appeal, the New Rules make provision for electronic version of the Seal of the Supreme Court and mandate the Registrar to furnish the electronic unit of the Registry copies of filed processes, within 15 days to facilitate the creation of electronic files(3). Although the stated purpose of electronic files in the New SC Rules is to facilitate access by the Justices of the Court, this shift to electronic filing can also improve continuity and efficiency, especially in cases of physical record loss or delays(4).
The New SC Rules extend the closing time of the Court’s Registry from 1PM to 4PM increasing accessibility for litigants. Additionally, the establishment of an electronic unit within the Registry(5), which operates daily (including holidays(6)), allows for continuous filing of documents electronically.
A notable departure from the Old SC Rules is the transfer of the responsibility to set aside or vary an act done by the Registrar from the Chief Justice to the Chief Registrar under Order 2 Rule 8. This shift is beneficial for several reasons. By delegating administrative matters to the Chief Registrar, the Chief Justice can concentrate on significant issues, leading to a more efficient and timely resolution of cases. Furthermore, this change helps to expedite the handling of procedural errors or administrative complaints, reducing delays in the judicial process.
Previously, notifications about Supreme Court sittings and cases were published in the Federal Gazette. This was logistically challenging. The New SC Rules streamline this process by allowing direct communication with parties through their physical or electronic addresses(7). The introduction of electronic service for hearing notices is a significant advancement that will reduce delays and minimise the logistical challenges and costs associated with physical service. Additionally, the New SC Rules require the Registrar to publish a weekly cause list every Friday, detailing the cases scheduled for the following week and available on both the official notice board and the website of the Supreme Court(8), further enhancing accessibility and transparency. However, the New Rules also give the Supreme Court the discretion to hear any appeal or address any matter, regardless of whether it appears in the published cause list(9). This flexibility ensures that urgent matters are not unnecessarily delayed.
These changes promote a more efficient and costeffective process for notifying parties of court proceedings, especially in urgent cases. The use of electronic communication minimizes the chances of parties claiming they did not receive notices, thereby addressing a common source of dispute.
Another innovation in Order 2 of the New SC Rules is the regulation of the number of Counsel that may appear in a matter in any particular proceeding. According to Order 2 Rule 13(2), a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) may not appear with more than five Counsel. If more than one SAN appear for the same party, the total number of Counsel for that party must not exceed eight, including the SANs. This provision aims to improve court efficiency by reducing the time spent on announcing legal representation and making better use of the limited seating space in the courtroom.
Order 3 – Service
Order 3 of the New SC Rules aims to address one of the longstanding procedural issues in the Supreme Court: the valid service of a notice of appeal. Under the Old SC Rules, challenges to the validity of service were common, primarily due to the narrow definition of an address for service, which permitted only a physical location for document delivery. This restriction often led to unnecessary procedural objections and delays in the appeal process(10).
In contrast, the New SC Rules have expanded the definition of address for service to include not only physical or postal addresses but also electronic mail addresses, mobile telephone numbers, and any other available modes of communication(11). This represents a significant advancement by incorporating modern communication methods and expanding the options for serving notices, thereby reducing the procedural bottlenecks that previously impacted the appeal process. In addition, the New SC Rules provide that a notice of appeal shall either be served personally or on the legal practitioner who represented the Respondent at the court of appeal or via electronic means(12).
This expanded approach eliminates the rigidity of personal service and offers greater flexibility, particularly in cases where physical service might be challenging or impractical. It also helps reduce frivolous objections related to service, ensuring that cases can proceed more efficiently.
Although these changes are progressive, the New Rules still maintain, in Order 3 Rule 2(b), the requirement for personal service of notice of appeal from the Old SC Rules. While this might seem contradictory, the proviso to Rule 2(b) addresses any potential concerns by expressly stating that no objection shall lie on the grounds of nonpersonal service if the notice was served through any of the alternative, permissible modes of service.
The New Rules also address a common issue where legal practitioners, who cease to represent a client, fail to notify the Court, resulting in improper service and subsequent objections. To resolve this, the New SC Rules impose a 7day deadline for any legal practitioner who no longer represents a client to inform the Registrar accordingly after receipt of service. This change is significant as the New SC Rules also stipulate that failure to notify the Court will not only incur costs but will also be considered as an act of professional misconduct(13).
Another key innovation in the New SC Rules is found in Order 3 Rule 6(2), which allows parties to personally serve any process, except for notice of appeal, on the other parties. This is subject to the requirement that the serving party must depose to an affidavit of service.
Still regarding service, the New Rules stipulate, under Order 3 Rule 7, that failure to endorse an address for service on any process to be filed will not be treated as a mere irregularity. According to this provision, the Registry will not accept for filing, any process without an endorsed address for service. If such a process is mistakenly accepted, it will not be considered properly filed.
Order 4 – Applications
Order 4 of the New SC Rules outlines the procedure for applications to the Supreme Court. Unlike the Old SC Rules, which only required that applications should be made by Notice of Motion and supported by an affidavit, the New SC Rules specify that every application shall be brought by a way of Motion on Notice, supported by an affidavit and written address not exceeding 10 pages. The New SC Rules also stipulate that a Respondent has 14 days to respond to the motion with a counter affidavit, and a written address not exceeding 7 pages. The Applicant may also file a reply address not exceeding 5 pages within 5 days.
One of the significant changes introduced by the New SC Rules relates to the applications for extension of time to appeal or for leave to appeal. The Old SC Rules required the inclusion of the judgment being appealed and any necessary supporting documents, such as transcripts of proceedings, to establish a prima facie reason for the appeal. The New Rules now add the requirement for a certified true copy of the lower court’s decision (where leave to appeal was refused), the order of refusal, and a written address in support of the application. Additionally, any application for leave to appeal that was refused by the Court of Appeal must be made to the Supreme Court within 21 days of such refusal(14).
The implication of these procedural enhancements is significant. By imposing stricter requirements and clear deadlines, the New SC Rules ensure that only wellprepared and meritorious applications proceed to the Supreme Court, thus preventing frivolous and dilatory appeals.
Another notable innovation is the provision allowing the Supreme Court to hear an application in chambers, provided that the Respondent files a notice of noncontention within 14 days of service of the application, indicating their intention not to oppose it. This provision reduces the burden of formal hearings in uncontested matters, freeing up valuable court time(15).
The New SC Rules also extend the notice period for preliminary objections. Under the Old SC Rules, the Respondent was required to give 3 days' notice and file 10 copies with the registry. However, the New Rules extend this to 5 clear days' notice, with 11 copies to be filed(16).
Additionally, the preliminary objection must now be argued in the Respondent’s brief of argument, except where the Respondent’s brief has already been filed, in which case a written address must accompany the notice of objection. These changes ensure that procedural objections are properly incorporated into the overall argument, rather than being treated as isolated issues, thus aligning the Supreme Court’s procedure with contemporary legal practice.
A particularly commendable change is the automatic extension of time for filing processes. The New SC Rules eliminate the need for an application for an extension of time, except in appeals against death sentences. Instead, the time for filing is automatically extended once for the same period initially prescribed. A further extension may be granted upon payment of a penalty for the period in default, provided it does not exceed the originally prescribed time, with no additional extensions allowed thereafter(17). This shift aims to curb tardiness and indifference towards abiding by the timeliness prescribed by the Rules.
In cases of non-compliance with the Rules, Order 4 Rule 14 outlines a strict framework for setting aside proceedings. The New Rules recognise that applications for this purpose may be made, but they require that such applications must be brought timeously and before the applicant takes any further steps upon becoming aware of the irregularity. If any further steps are taken, the right to challenge the non-compliance is considered waived. This provision prevents parties from exploiting procedural irregularities as a tactic to delay proceedings after having actively participated.
(1) In Dickson Ogunseinde Virya Farms Ltd v. Societe Generale Bank Ltd & Ors [2018] LPELR-43710(SC), 11-12, paras D-A.
(2) Order 1 Rule 4 of the New Rules.
(3) Order 2 Rules 4, 5 and 7 of the New Rules.
(4) This will help prevent unfortunate implications of missing or destroyed physical files which ultimately occasions significant delays to the justice system. An example being the aftermath of the 2020 EndSARS unrest in Lagos State.
(5) Order 2 Rule 7(2) of the New Rules.
(6) Order 2 Rule 9 of the New Rules.
(7) Order 2 Rule 11 of the New Rules.
(8) Order 2 Rule 10 of the New Rules.
(9) See Proviso to Order 2 Rule 11 of the New Rules.
(10) The majority decision of the Supreme Court in Odey v. Alaga [2021] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1792) 1 at 63, paras G- H is to the effect that a Notice of Appeal must be served personally and failure to serve it personally renders the appeal incompetent. However, the Supreme Court in Amaechi v. Gov. Rivers State [2022] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1858) 1 at 45, paras E – F relying on its decision in A.G. Fed v. Anuebunwa [2022] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1850) 211 wherein it departed from the decision in Odey v. Alaga and applied the proviso to Rule 3(1) of Order 2 of the Supreme Court Rules to the effect that where the facts show that the notice of appeal was served on the Respondent’s counsel at the lower court at the address indicated in the notice of appeal personal service of the court is satisfied that it has been communicated to the Respondent.
(11) Order 3 Rule 1 of the New Rules.
(12) Order 3 Rule 2(1) of the new Rules.
(13) This provision mirrors Order 2, Rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules and included that it will be treated as a professional misconduct as against mere payment of cost.
(14) Order 4 Rule 8 of the New Rules.
(15) Order 4 Rule 12 of the New Rules.
(16) Order 4 Rule 13 of the new Rules.
(17) Order 4 Rule 15 of the New Rules.
--
Read the full publication at Olaniwun Ajayi
