The Court of Appeal has affirmed the right of Malam Nasir El Rufai to a fair hearing, setting aside the judgment delivered by Justice R. M. Aikawa of the Federal High Court in Kaduna.
The ruling followed an appeal filed by El Rufai against the Kaduna State House of Assembly in the case marked CA/K/240/2024.
The development was disclosed on Tuesday by El Rufai’s media adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye.
According to the appellate court, the Federal High Court erred by proceeding with the hearing on July 18, 2024 without properly serving El Rufai with a hearing notice and denying him the opportunity to respond to the respondents’ counter affidavit.
As a result, the Court of Appeal nullified the proceedings conducted on July 18, 2024 and set aside the judgment delivered on July 30, 2024 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
The court subsequently remitted the matter to the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge for a fresh hearing.
El Rufai had filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit in 2024, challenging the Kaduna State House of Assembly over what he described as the denial of a fair hearing during its investigation.
The trial court had earlier adjourned the matter but later proceeded in his absence, granted the respondents’ applications and denied him the opportunity to respond.
In the appeal, El Rufai through his lawyer, A U Mustapha SAN, argued that the case was improperly heard during vacation without any formal application and that the trial judge declined to step aside from the matter.
The Court of Appeal examined two key issues, proper service of the hearing notice and the denial of the opportunity to file a further affidavit.
On the issue of service, the court stressed that only contact details provided by parties are valid for the purpose of serving notices, noting that there was no evidence that El Rufai was properly served.
On the second issue, the court held that under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, El Rufai was entitled to file a further affidavit and reply on points of law within five days, and the trial court had no discretion to deny him that right.
The judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to fair hearing and proper legal procedure, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights.
