IS JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED?

AN EXAMINATION OF DELAYED
JUDGMENT IN THE NIGERIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM

BY

NELSON, Merit Ugiagbe

LAW/190552

FACULTY OF LAW
BENSON IDAHOSA UNIVERSITY
BENIN CITY, EDO STATE, NIGERIA

JULY, 2024

I
IS JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED? AN EXAMINATION OF DELAYED
JUDGMENT IN THE NIGERIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM

BY

NELSON, Merit Ugiagbe

LAW/190552

BEING A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF LAW IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
BACHELOR OF LAWS (LL.B) DEGREE OF BENSON IDAHOSA UNIVERSITY,
BENIN CITY, NIGERIA

JULY. 2024

I
 CERTIFICATION

I NELSON, Merit Ugiagbe with matriculation number LAW/190552, Hereby certify that

apart from the reference made to other peoples’ work which have fully been acknowledged,

the research work was carried out by me and has neither in whole nor in part been presented

for the award of another degree elsewhere.

_________________________ ____________________
NELSON, Merit Ugiagbe DATE
LAW/190552

iii
 APPROVAL
We hereby certify that NELSON, Merit Ugiagbe with matriculation number LAW/190552
completed this project in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of Bachelor of
laws (LL.B) of Benson Idahosa University

______________________ _________________
AKPATA, Rita-Jeno Date
(Project supervisor)

______________________ _____________________
DR (Mrs) Oyenwese Date
Head of Department (Public Law)

________________ _________________
DR (Mrs) S.O Idehen Date
Dean of Faculty

IV
 DEDICATION
This research is devoted with heartfelt gratitude to Almighty God, whose unwavering
support, love, and boundless mercy have sustained me. His divine protection and peace have
guided me throughout the five-year journey to earn my LLB (Hon) degree. I also dedicate
this work to my beloved mother, whose encouragement and sacrifices have been a constant
source of inspiration and strength.

IV
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, I am profoundly grateful to Almighty God for His unfailing support, love,
and endless mercies. His divine protection and peace have guided me throughout this project
and my academic journey.

I extend my deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Mrs. Rita Akpata, whose invaluable

guidance, support, and expertise have been instrumental in the successful completion of this
project.

To my beloved mother, Mrs. Faith Oghosa, your encouragement, sacrifices, and unwavering
belief in me have been a constant source of inspiration and strength. I owe so much of this
achievement to you.

My heartfelt thanks go to my siblings, Gold Nelson and Justice Nelson, for their love,
support, and understanding throughout this journey.

I am also grateful to the Dean, Dr. (Mrs.) S.O. Idehen, for her leadership and support, and to
my course advisor, Dr. (Mrs.) Oyenwense, for her valuable advice and encouragement.

I also extend gratitude and appreciation to all my Lecturers who have helped and taught me at
one point or the other. Dr. T.U. Akpoghome, Mr. Adewoye, Dr. Daudu, Mr. Oviefo
Ekhenomian. Mr. Theo Wwano, Mrs. Onyenwense, Mr. J.B. Bello, Mrs. Lillian Omonfuegbe
and Mrs. Faith Ibineweka. May God Almighty bless, protect and guide you all

To my amazing friends, Pelumi (MSK) Akugbe, Jael, Chinaza, and my lovely roommate,
Peace, your friendship and support have made this journey memorable and enjoyable.

Thank you all for being an integral part of this achievement.

 TABLE OF CASES

A.G. Cross Rivers State v. Esin, 2SC,115 (1972)--------------------------------------------------41

Adigun v AG Oyo State (1987) CLR 3(h) (SC)-----------------------------------------------------12

Adisa v Oyinwola,[2000] 10 NWLR (Pt.674) 116 in 185—----------------------------------------2

Adisa v Oyinwola (2007) 13 NWLR (pt.1052) 567—---------------------------------------------42

Agiende Ayambi v. The State (1985), 6 NCLR, 141.-----------------------------------------------13

Agiende Ayambi v The State,(1985) 6NCLR141—------------------------------------------------42

Amadi v NNPC,(2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 76 —---------------------------------------------------2

Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 1 SC 13—---------------------------------------------------------------------3

Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2007) 2 S.C. 146—-29

Buhari v. Obasanjo (2004) 1 W.R.N.-----------------------------------------------------------------31

Ekiri v Kemiside & Ors, 1976) NWLR145—-------------------------------------------------------42

Elelu Habeeb v. A.G. Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1318) 423—---------------------------41

FGN v. Adams Oshiohmole [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt. 2) 326,------------------------------------------35

GTB v. Toyed (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2016), LPELR-4181 (CA).------------------------------------13

Halilu Akilu V. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (No.2) Sc.215/88 – Sc.216/88—-----------------------11

Ibrahim Sakati v. Jabule Bako & Anor (2015) LLJR SC—---------------------------------------4

In Joseph Ozoma & Ors v M. Osanwuta,UHC/30/679(1969)-------------------------------------42

In Justice Akpor & Ors v Ighorigo,2SC,115 (1972)------------------------------------------------41

Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341—--------------------------------------- -----------

12

Musa Abubakar v E.I. Chuks,(2007) SC 184—------------------------------------------------------4

Obasi v. State (2020) LPELR-51080 (SC)-------------------------------------------------------------

2
Okeke v The State (1985), 6 NCLR, 141—----------------------------------------------------------20

R. Ariori & Ors v. Muranio B. O. Elemo & Ors (1983), 1SC 1 AT22-26—----------------------4

Salu v Egeigbon,(1994) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 2) 223 at 246—---------------------------------------------29

Senate v Momoh [1981] 1 Nigeria Constitutional Law Reports—--------------------------------

11

Union Bank Nigeria Plc v Ayodara Sons (Nig) limited (2007) 13 NWLR (pt.1052) 56—----42

Union Bank Nigeria Plc v Ayodare and Sons (Nig.) Limited,[2007] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 56
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
 TABLE OF STATUES

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)

Section 6(1) and (2)

Section 230(1) of the 1999 Constitution

Section 232(1)

Section 233(1)

Section 217(1)

Section 237

Section 239(1)

Section 240

Section 241(1) of the 1999 Constitution

Section 241(2)

Section 244 (1)

Section 245 (1) and (2)

Section 246(1) of the 1999 constitution,

Section 246(2) of the Constitution

Section 254 of the Constitution

Section 254(a)A

Section 262(1) of the constitution

Section 267

Section 270(1)

Section 272(1)

Section 84 (1), (2), (4), (7)

Section 121(3) of the CFRN 1999(as amended)

Section 291 of the 1999 Constitution

 TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

All Federation Weekly Law Reports (AFWLR)

All Nigeria Law Reports (ANLR)

All Nigerian Law Reports (ANLR)

All Nigerian Supreme Court Reports (ANSCR)

All Nigeria Weekly Law Reports (ANWLR)

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Backlog Elimination Programme (BEP)

Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN)

Court of Appeal (CA)

Customary Court of Appeal (CCA)

Federal High Court (FHC)

Federation of Nigeria Law Reports (FNLR)

High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (HCFCT)

High Court of the State (HCS)

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria (JSCN)

Law Reports of the Courts of Nigeria (LRCN)

National Industrial Court (NIC)

National Industrial Court (NIC)

Nigeria Labour Law Reports (NLLR)

Nigerian Criminal Reports (NCR)

Nigerian Law Reports (NLR)

Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)

Nigerian Weekly Law Reports Annotated (NWLR (A))

Nigeria Weekly Law Reports (NWLR)

Sharia Court of Appeal (SCA)

Supreme Court of Nigeria (SCN)

Supreme Court of Nigeria Law Reports (SCNLR)

University of Ife Law Reports (UILR)

 TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE PAGE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVAL-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDICATION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CASES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF STATUES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 BACKGROUND OF STUDY-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.9 RESEARCH STRUCTURE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1 INTRODUCTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 REVIEW----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.1 THE NIGERIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.2 THE CONCEPT OF DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE--------------------------------------------------------
2.2.3 PROCEDURAL BOTTLENECKS AND THEIR ROLE IN DELAYING COURT JUDGEMENTS IN
NIGERIA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.4 THE CONCEPT OF REASONABLE TIME IN ADMINISTERING JUSTICE.---------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NATURE OF THE NIGERIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM----------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 INTRODUCTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF THE NIGERIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3 STRUCTURE OF THE NIGERIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.1 SUPREME COURT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.2 COURT OF APPEAL-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.3 FEDERAL HIGH COURT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.4 THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.5 THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.6 THE CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.7 HIGH COURT OF A STATE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.4 PROCEDURES FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4.1 Supreme Court Justice------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4.2 Appeal Court Justice---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4.3 Federal High Court Judge---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4.4 Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja -------------------------------------------------------
3.4.5 State High Court Judge------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4.6 Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4.7 Judge of the Customary Court of Appeal-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.5 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER FOUR; THE PERSISTENCE OF DELAYED JUDGMENT IN NIGERIA------------------------------------------------------------
4.1 INTRODUCTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 CAUSES OF DELAYED JUDGMENT IN NIGERIA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.1 THE PROBLEM OF CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.2 INADEQUATE COURT FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.3 DELAY TACTICS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.4 POOR REMUNERATION AND WELFARE OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS--------------------------------------------------------
4.3.5 DELAYS IN SECURING THE ATTENDANCE OF KEY WITNESSES CAN POSTPONE HEARINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.6 PLOYS OF LAWYERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4 IMPLICATIONS OF DELAYED JUSTICE IN NIGERIA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 OBSERVATION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4 RECOMMENDATION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5 CONCLUSION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED? AN EXAMINATION OF DELAYED
JUDGMENT IN THE NIGERIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM

ABSTRACT

Justice delayed is often equated to justice denied, particularly within the context of the
Nigerian justice system, where prolonged legal proceedings significantly impact the
effectiveness and perception of justice. This chapter delves into the causes and consequences
of delayed judgments in Nigeria, highlighting key systemic issues and their broader
implications. The primary causes of judicial delays include inadequate infrastructure,
insufficient funding, and a shortage of judicial officers, which collectively contribute to a
backlog of cases. Additionally, delay tactics and ploys of lawyers further undermine the
integrity and efficiency of the legal process. These delays have far-reaching effects, like
eroding public trust in the judicial system and perpetuating a cycle of injustice. Victims and
defendants alike suffer prolonged uncertainty, which can lead to psychological distress,
financial hardship, and erosion of social cohesion. Furthermore, the delayed resolution of
disputes hampers economic development by creating an unpredictable legal environment that
discourages investment. To address these issues, comprehensive reforms are necessary,
focusing on increasing judicial capacity, streamlining legal procedures, and enhancing
transparency and accountability within the system. By examining both the causes and effects
of judicial delays in Nigeria, this study underscores the urgent need for systemic changes to
ensure timely justice. Such reforms are essential not only for the protection of individual
rights but also for the broader socio-economic stability and development of the country. In
conclusion, without addressing the root causes of delayed judgments, the Nigerian justice
system risks further degradation, making the adage "justice delayed is justice denied" an
enduring reality.
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This research seeks to analyze the phenomenon of delay in court judgment; thus, examining
the causes of the delayed court judgment and its effects on the justice system in Nigeria. It
also seeks to provide possible solution(s) to this problem. The importance of an efficient
justice system in the country cannot be overemphasized as it creates an environment that
allows for easy development of the country. A justice system cannot be said to be truly
efficient when justice itself cannot be tendered at the appropriate time. The delay in the
dispensation of justice can be attributed to numerous factors, and conversely, the solutions to
this persistent issue lies in addressing each of these contributing factors in reverse. 1.

These persistent delays in the Nigerian justice system not only hinder the effective
functioning of the judiciary but also have profound consequences for the society. This is
because an efficient justice system is mandatory to achieve a stable human society as the
judiciary is regarded as the last hope of the common man and is charged with the
responsibility of administering and dispensing justice in the society. However, with the
Nigeria justice system being characterized with delay, it is often thought of as a complete
waste of time by the common man in the society. This has led to fewer and fewer persons
patronizing the court system in Nigeria, consequently resulting to the frequent use of self-
help, which is frowned at by the law, and may in turn result in anarchy2.

Another implication of the delay in the Nigerian justice system is that not only is it
detrimental to the society as previously discussed, but it is also detrimental to the rights of an
individual in a country. Such rights including the right of fair hearing and due process 3. Cases
in Nigeria today can last up to and even more than 20 years in court. An example is the case

1
Yusuf O. A., “Delay in the administration of Justice at the magistrate court- factors responsible and solutions”
in [Link] Accessed 28th January 2024.
2
Joan M., Patience O. and Richard O., “Where are we in Curbing Delays in Administration of Justice in
Nigeria?” in [Link]
Accessed 29th January 2024.
3
Section 36 of the 1999 constitution FRN (as amended)

17
of Obasi v. State4 which took over 20 years to get to the supreme court. Another example is
Ariori v. Elemo5 which took about 23 years to conclude. No one of competence will
knowingly and voluntarily look forward to such an endless wait for justice ascertaining the
fact that justice delayed is justice denied.

In light of this issue, the Nigerian government has implemented a range of measures to
address the delay in the administration of justice in the country's judicial system. They
include the promotion of ADR as an alternative to the court process. In Lagos state, a
Backlog Elimination Programme (BEP) was launched which was designed to decongest the
courts by re-evaluating old cases and finding ways of resolving them through Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) or accelerated hearing where they are referred for resolution to a
Special Backlog Conference Judge. The government has also invested in training programs
and capacity building initiatives for judges, court staff, and other judicial stakeholders.

Some other efforts of the government include judicial reforms, the establishment of
specialized courts, implementation of case management systems, appointment of additional
judges, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, training and capacity
building, and infrastructural development. These initiatives aim to enhance the efficiency,
effectiveness, and timeliness of the judicial process. However, the impact of these measures
may vary, and ongoing evaluation and adjustments are necessary to ensure continued
progress in reducing the backlog of cases. The government's commitment to addressing this
issue underscores the importance of timely justice delivery and access to a fair and efficient
judicial system for all Nigerians.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

After gaining independence in 1960, Nigeria inherited a judicial system that was largely
influenced by the British legal system with the Privy council being the highest court in the
country. However, in 1963 a new court was established known as the Supreme Court of
Nigeria to be the highest court in the country. This Supreme Court exists till present, headed
by the Chief Justice. Following the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council. In a bid to ensure efficient justice delivery, the need arose for the
establishment of an intermediate Court between the High Courts and the Supreme Court of
Nigeria (the Apex Court), this led the Government of the Western State to establish a Court
known as the Western Nigeria Court of Appeal in [Link] 1976, The Court of Appeal was
4
(2020) LPELR-51080 (SC)
5
(1983) 1 SC 13

18
formally established by the Court of Appeal Decree (now Cap. C36, Laws of the Federation
of Nigeria, 2004).

The Federal Revenue Court ( formerly called Federal High Court ) was established by the
Federal Revenue Act 1973 (1973 No.13). It was however designated “The Federal High
Court” by Section 228 (1) and 230 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1979. Other courts established in Nigeria include; High Courts of States, High Court of the
Federal Capital Territory, Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary Court of Appeal, National
Industrial Court, Magistrate Courts, Customary Courts, Sharia Courts.

Since 1999 the judicial system in Nigeria has continued to grow and improve. Statutes that
originated in lower courts have been made into Federal law to ensure that our judicial system
is as effective and comprehensive as possible. However, the growing population and
increasing caseloads placed a strain on the judicial system. In the year 2017/2018, 17,076
new cases were filed before the Federal High Court across its various divisions in the
country. Speaking at the special court session held at the court’s headquarters in Abuja on
September 17, 2018, to mark the commencement of the 2018/2019 legal year, the court’s
Chief Judge, Justice Adamu Abdu-Kafarati, said although 15,076 cases were disposed of
during the last legal year, at the beginning of the new 2018/2019 legal year, 191,766 cases
were still pending in the court. Also, the CJN, during the previous 2017/2018 legal year, said
the Supreme Court “considered” a total of 1,097 criminal and civil motions as well as 438
criminal and civil appeals. However, only a total 297 judgments were delivered by the apex
court during the period6.

In the celebrated case of Ariori v Elemo,7 proceedings were commenced in the trial court in
1960 and was concluded at the Supreme Court in 1983, the case took a total of 23 years from
the trial court to the Supreme Court. The trial court delivered judgment fifteen months after
the conclusion of the case and the case lasted in the Supreme Court from 1972 - 1983. In
Adisa v Oyinwola,8 the trial court gave judgment while the appeal was not determined by the
Supreme Court until the year 2000 – the appeal lasted for 15 years from the Court of Appeal
to the Supreme Court. In the case of Amadi v NNPC,9 a preliminary issue of jurisdiction took
the Court 13 years to decide as the case went up to Supreme Court. In Union Bank Nigeria
6
Ade A., “Judiciary still in search of solution to delayed justice” in <[Link]
search-of-solution-to-delayed-justice/> Accessed 30th March 2024..
7
1983 1 SC NLR 1.
8
[2000] 10 NWLR (Pt.674) 116 in 185
9
(2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 76 @ 80

19
Plc v Ayodare and Sons (Nig.) Limited,10 the matter was instituted at the State High Court in
1989 but was not finally disposed of by the Supreme Court until 2007 – a period of 18 years,
in conclusion of trial and judgment, and at the end, the Supreme Court set aside the whole
proceeding because of the delay, what a waste of time, energy and resources! Also, in Musa
Abubakar v E.I. Chuks,11 it took more than 7 years to fight the admissibility of an exhibit. In
Ibrahim Sakati v. Jabule Bako & Anor12 Where the legal dispute lingered in court dockets for
about 29 years and of the 29 years life span of the case, it spent 15 of it at the Supreme Court.

Seeking justice for a period of way over 7 years is surely to be considered as too long a time
to wait for justice. This prompts one to contemplate the duration of time that is deemed
acceptable for awaiting justice without it being considered excessively long. Section 36(4) of
the 1999 constitution provides; “whenever any person is charged with a criminal offense, he
shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a
reasonable time by a court or tribunal.”

Obaseki JSC in explaining what reasonable time is in R. Ariori & Ors v. Muranio B. O.
Elemo & Ors13 remarked that “Reasonable time must mean the period of time which, in the
search for justice, does not wear out the parties and their witness and which is required to
ensure that justice is not only one but appears to reasonably persons to be done.”

The lack of specificity of reasonable time leaves much to be desired. In 2020, Hon. Onofiok
Luke, a lawyer and member of the House of Representatives representing Etinan/Nsit
Ibom/Nsit Ubium Federal Constituency, sponsored a Bill at the House of Representatives
seeking to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and
create a timeframe within which civil and criminal cases are heard and determined 14. In
support of the Bill, the Chief Whip of the House, Mohammed Monguno said “Once a time
limit is constitutionally stipulated for the disposal of criminal cases, then the courts will
make sure that these cases are not stagnant; they will make sure that they are disposed of by
the time stipulated by the Constitution”. On the other hand, Hon. Nkem Abonta stated that “A
lot of things must be put in place before we can do this. If we do this without putting things in

10
[2007] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 567
11
(2007) SC 184
12
(2015) LLJR SC
13
(1983), 1SC 1 AT22-26
14
1 Udora O., “Nigeria: Bill Seeking Timeline for Civil, Criminal Cases Passes for Second Reading” in
[Link] Accessed 12th February, 2024.

20
place, we will be setting criminal free”. This bill eventually did not gain enough votes and
therefore failed to pass15.

It is worthy of note that the specificity of ‘reasonable time’ is not unoccurence in our
constitution as Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution (First Alteration) Act 2010 introduced
new Subsections (5), (6) and (7) as follows:

“(5) An election petition shall be filed within 21 days after the date of declaration of results
of the election.

(6) An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of
the filing of the petition (six months)

(7) An appeal from decision of an election tribunal or Court shall be heard and disposed of
within 60 days from the date of the delivery of the judgment of tribunal.”

As a result of this section, it is seen that the specificity of time frames for court proceedings is
not such an impossible task as one may think. By establishing clear and enforceable
timeframes for the various stages of proceedings, from initial filing to final judgment, courts
can help curb the problem of delayed justice that plagues the legal systems. While there may
be legitimate reasons for extensions in certain complex cases, the default expectation should
be adherence to predetermined deadlines. Ultimately, specificity of duration is an essential
component of an effective and responsive judicial framework that serves the interests of
justice in a timely manner. Implementing such measures can help address the longstanding
issue of delayed judgments and strengthen the overall integrity of the legal process.

1.3 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

The delay in the administration of Justice has not only affected the efficiency of the justice
system but has also led to the loss of credibility and reliability of the court process. Most
people see the court process as a complete waste of time and waste of effort thus leading to
less patronization of the court process. In Nigeria, people only know the date they approach
the court but do not know when their matters will get determined. The snaillike pace of
justice delivery has caused great discomfort, inconveniences, and hopelessness to litigant
resulting to lack of trust in the judiciary. A 2021 survey on citizens’ perceptions on
governance in Nigeria by Anvarie Tech and ResearcherNG and Bincika Insights found that

15
Ibid

21
about 71 percent of Nigerians lack trust in the Judiciary. 16 This lack of trust has in turn
encouraged or fostered citizens or litigants to resort to self-help thus creating a society filled
with violence and in no time anarchy. This lack of trust in the judiciary has also led to fewer
and fewer patronization of the court process. Having a total number of 17,076 newly initiated
case in 2017/2018 legal year in a country as Nigeria with a population of over 200million
people is a ratio that may be termed to be absurd.

The problem of delay in the administration of justice has an eEmotional and pPsychological
iImpact on litigants in the sense that the prolonged waiting period can have a detrimental
impact on the mental and emotional well-being of the parties involved. It can cause anxiety,
frustration, and emotional distress, as individuals are left in a state of limbo without closure
or resolution. With no attempt to exaggerate, a case could last a lifetime in Court. 17 A person
who had been completely passionate about her case at the initial stage in court may
completely lose interest in such case after years of tossing back and forth, making all the
efforts invested at the initial stage of the case futile. There is also the possibility of the court
judgement not ending in favor of a party as the system of the court is built to favor one party
over the other thus increasing the distress of litigants. This possibility of ending up at the
unfortunate end of court judgement after immerse delay is also another reason for the fewer
and fewer patronization of the court process. The court which is regarded as the last hope of
the common man is now regarded by those who waited for years without justice as the lost
hope of the common man.

The delay in the administration of justice is also equivalent s to justice denied. Although one
might say that the judicial process is set up to work, effectively, eventually, however litigants
exploit the loopholes that arise because of this problem of delay and deliberately frustrate the
other party into settlement or even worse forfeiture thus resulting to injustice. With this
soaring rate of injustice, lack of trust in the judiciary and the unwillingness for such an
endless wait for justice, the thoughts of anarchy may not seem farfetched.

The government, in a bid to curtail this persistent problem of delay, has initiated reforms
aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system. This includes the
establishment of specialized courts, such as the National Industrial Court, to handle specific

16
Mashe U. G., “71% of Nigerians lack trust in the judiciary -Survey” in < [Link]
of-nigerians-lack-trust-in-the-judiciary-survey-2/> Accessed 12th February 2024.
17
Atoyebi O. M., “ Adjudication Timeframe in Nigeria’s Criminal Jurisprudence: The Bill That Should Have
Passed” in [Link] [Link] Accessed 13st February 2024

22
types of cases and reduce the burden on general courts, and also the implementation of case
management systems, such as the Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) and
the National Judicial Information System (NJIS), seeks to automate case processing,
document management, and facilitate better coordination among judicial stakeholders. The
government has also encouraged the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms, such
as mediation, conciliation , and arbitration, to help reduce the burden on the courts and
expedite the resolution of cases. However irrespective of these actions of the government, the
problem of delay still persists in today’s society. In 2023 at the Annual Conference of the
Nigerian Bar Association, The President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-
Mensem, expressed concerns over the backlog of cases in courts across the country.
According to her, the scourge had become a pressing issue that required immediate attention.
She stated that, “We cannot ignore the challenges that beset our justice system, ranging from
case backlogs to inadequate funding and the paucity of infrastructure… The backlog of cases
in our courts is a pressing concern that demands our immediate attention… Timely delivery
of justice is essential not only for the litigants but also for the credibility of our legal
system.”18 Despite the government's numerous attempts to salvage it, this issue continues to
persist. It is a problem that has plagued the judiciary for far too long thus prompting this
research which seeks to delve deeply into the root cause of the problem and in turn aiming to
provide solutions.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In view of analyzing the delay in court judgment, this study will be addressing the following
questions:

1. What are the causes of the delay in the Nigeria justice system?

2. What are the effects of this delay in the Nigeria justice system?

1.5 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to

delayed judgment and to explore the broader implications and effects of these delays on the
legal system and the parties involved. The research also seeks to achieve the following
objectives:
18
Odeniyi S., “Appeal Court Seeks Urgent Action on Backlog of Cases” in < [Link]
seeks-urgent-action-on-backlog-of-cases/> Accessed 1st March 2024

23
1 To identify the causes of the delay in the administration of Justice.

2 To examine the effect that this delay has on the Nigeria justice system

3 To analyze the steps the government has taken in solving these issues and examine the
effectiveness of the steps in our society.

4 To contribute to general knowledge as regards steps taken for a developed judiciary in

Nigeria.

1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The scope of this topic given the time and resources constraint on me is therefore based on
the Nigeria justice system and it does not encompass the judicial system of the other
countries except to draw inference or except necessary to establish a link between various
justice system and except to draw a comparison between them. In order to adequately discuss
this topic, one must analyze laws that are concerned with the judicial system and to do this
the following should be examined, The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Legal authorities, case
law, laws of various courts when necessary.

1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

When discussing ways to improve the judicial system one’s mind may easily go to
independence of the judiciary, instigating judiciary reforms, prosecuting war against judicial
corruption and many more. Not to undermine the aforementioned ways of improving the
judiciary, however the judiciary which is instituted for the people must first be seen as
reliable and not just a complete waste of time. This issue of delayed judgment in the judicial
system is a matter of great concern and has far-reaching implications for the overall
effectiveness and fairness of the justice system. As such, the significance of this study of
delayed judgment includes the following;

1. To provide a proper understanding of the causes of delayed judgment which is crucial for
identifying the systemic flaws and inefficiencies within the legal system.
2. To provide a proper insight on the Nigeria legal system, examining its structure, origin,
appointments and so on.
3. It aims to shed light on the concept of justice being denied due to delays in the legal
process and provide a foundation for developing strategies to mitigate the impact of
delayed judgment

24
4. It contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the issue of delayed judgment.

1.8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research will involve the study of primary and secondary sources relevant to this topic.
Thus, this work will basically adopt a doctrinal approach only. This entails articles, journals,
newspapers, internet-based sources, legislative enactments, the Nigerian constitution and
judicial authorities.

1.9 RESEARCH STRUCTURE

This is made up of five chapters including this introductory chapter that summarizes the work
briefly.
Chapter One : contains the general introduction, statement of problem, research questions,
aim and objectives, scope and limitations of the study, significance of the study, research
methodology and research structure.
Chapter Two: This contains the literature review on the perspectives and assessments of
various scholars and experts with respect to this study.
Chapter Three: examines the nature of the Nigerian judiciary system- the chapter shall
examine concepts like the origin, structure, appointment, independence, punishment etc.
Chapter Four: This focuses on an examination of the persistence of delayed judgment in
Nigeria, this will provide for its meaning, causes, effects etc.
Chapter Five: Contains conclusion and recommendation for the study.

25
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the existing body of knowledge surrounding delayed court judgments.
By synthesizing and analyzing relevant research, scholarly articles, and legal analyses. The
major purpose of this work is to shed light on the multifaceted nature of this problem and
provide insights into its implications for justice systems of Nigeria. This may be
accomplished by delving into the existing research and scholarly discourse, thus endeavoring
to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding delayed court
judgments. This review of existing literature may be done under the following headings; The
Nigeria Judicial System, The Concept of Delayed Court Judgement, Procedural Bottlenecks
and Their Role in Delaying Court Judgements in Nigeria, The Concept of Reasonable Time
in Administering Justice.

2.2 REVIEW

2.2.1 THE NIGERIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM

According to Black’s Law dictionary, the judiciary is defined as the branch of government
responsible for interpreting laws and administering justice, made up of a system of courts and
a body of judges. In order to carry out their functions, courts are granted judicial power.
Section 6(1) and (2) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) vests judicial power in the courts.
Subsection (5) of this section provided for the courts which are granted judicial powers.
Judicial power is the power of a sovereign authority to determine actual controversies or
disputes arising between its subjects or between itself and its subjects through the use of a
tribunal having the power to entertain the suit and to give a binding and authoritative decision
thereupon. It is, in essence, the power of the court to entertain, pronounce judgment and carry
out such a decision into effect between persons who bring a case before it for determination.19

Per Ige, J.C.A20 stated Judicial powers to mean the authority of the court to adjudicate upon
and decide any matter before it, which is within its jurisdiction.

19
“The Judiciary“, in <[Link] Accessed 27th March
28, 2024
20
. (P.20, paras, C-E)

26
Also, Nnaemeka Agu JSC in Senate v Momoh21, described judicial power as the authority
exercised by the department of government that is charged with declaration of what the Law
is and its construction.

Pokol Bela22, in dealing on judicial powers identified three distinctive forms of judicial
powers. These forms complement each other and they are the repositories of the role the
judiciary plays in controlling society. They are as follows:

1) judicial power representing the making of rulings in controlling society deduced from the
stipulations of the federal Constitution, concentrating foremost in the Federal Supreme Court;

2) the second form represents the judiciary executive power which means the supervision of
the execution and monitoring of the above fundamental rulings and which present themselves
at the federal district courts by filing thousands of motions requesting institutional remedies;

3) the third form is constituted by the judiciary’s task to oversee the regulatory work of
federal agencies, which can be termed as the empowerment of the federal courts to issue
orders of implementation.

In Okorocha v PDP23, the Supreme Court emphasized on this duty when it stated that: “The
court must do all it can to jealously guard its powers and the supremacy of our constitution
as the grundnorm, which is above all other authorities. The court as the custodian of the
constitution must not therefore be seen to ridicule the very institution that puts it in place”

The judicial powers expressly provided in section 6(1) & (2) of the 1999 constitution,
subsection (6) further provides that such judicial powers shall include inherent powers and
sanctions of the court of law.

In the case of Col. Halilu Akilu V. Chief Gani Fawehinmi 24 when the apex court of the land
was faced with the meaning of the word inherent jurisdiction, Per Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C
stated thus: “Inherent jurisdiction or inherent power, (as it is more commonly called) of court
is that which is not expressly spelt out by the Constitution, or in any statute or rule but which
can, of necessity, be invoked by any court of record to supplement its express jurisdiction and
powers.”
21
[1981] 1 Nigeria Constitutional Law Reports 21,
22
Pokol B., “Forms of Judicial Power”, in
<[Link]
forms_of_judicial_power.pdf?sequence=1> Accessed 28th March 2024
23
(2014) 57 NSCQR, 272
24
(No.2) Sc.215/88 – Sc.216/88

27
Also in Adigun v AG Oyo State25, the Courts described inherent powers as that power which
is itself essential to the very existence of the court as an institution and to its ability to
function as such institution.

According to J. R. Carrigan26 Inherent powers consist of all powers reasonably required to

enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence
and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective. These powers are inherent in the sense
that they exist because the court exists; the court is, therefore it has the powers reasonably
required to act as an efficient court.

Furthermore, The Supreme Court per Karibi Whyte, JSC in Adigun v. A.G. of Oyo State27
aptly stated this: “Thus, the inherent powers of the court can be invoked in the interest of
justice to supplement the statutory jurisdiction where the exercise of such jurisdiction was
likely to result in injustice. The inherent powers which a court is entitled to exercise merely
because it is a court seems to me to be the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction which enables
the court to fulfill itself as a court and to do substantial justice where necessary in the
particular case.”

The jurisdiction of a court is a fundamental aspect of its judicial powers, defining the scope
and authority to hear and decide legal cases. Jurisdiction is basically the power of a court to
hear or try a case and a court can only exercise judicial powers within an authorized
jurisdiction. Under the 1999 constitution, jurisdictional issues can be divided into Original,
Exclusive and Appellate jurisdiction among the various levels of courts. Generally, before a
court can exercise jurisdiction, it must satisfy certain conditions prescribed by the Court
in Madukolu v Nkemdilim28. That is: It must be properly constituted as regards number and
qualification of Judges, the subject matter of the cause must be within its jurisdiction and the
case must come before the Court initiated by due process of law.29

Per Ndukwe-Anyawu, J.C.A stated in the case of GTB v. Toyed (Nig) Ltd & Anor 30 “The law
is well settled and it no longer admits of any argument that jurisdiction is the very basis and

25
(1987) CLR 3(h) (SC)
26
Carrigan J.R., “Inherent Powers of The Courts”, in [Link]
powers-courts Accessed 28th April 2024.
27
(1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 197
28
(1962) 2 SCNLR 341

29
“The Judiciary”, in [Link] Accessed 28th April
2024.
30
(2016), LPELR-4181 (CA).

28
the life wire of every matter and on which any Court tries or hears a case. It is,
metaphorically speaking, the life blood of all trials, whether it be at the Court of trial or on
appeal, and without which all such trials and hearings are a nullity notwithstanding how
well or meticulous such a trial or proceeding had been conducted or how sound or profound
the resultant judgement. It is simply a nullity”

Lateef M.A31 opined that jurisdiction is the superstructure upon which the judicial power of a
court of law is founded. In other words, jurisdiction is the life wire, the bedrock and
foundation of all judicial and even quasi-judicial proceedings. Consequently, any decision
reached without jurisdiction by a court of law or any tribunal is generally said to be null, void
and of no legal effect whatsoever.

Victor Umana32 in his article stated that Jurisdiction acts as a source of enabling power that
empowers each court in its hierarchy to observe the principle of Stare Decisis. Jurisdiction
establishes the authority, power, and limitation of the courts to exercise their judicial powers
in their hierarchy

The judiciary in Nigeria is structured in a hierarchical manner, with the Supreme Court
serving as the highest appellate court in the country. Below the Supreme Court are various
levels of courts, including the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court, the State High
Courts, Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary Court of Appeal and the Magistrate Courts. Each
level of court has its jurisdiction and handles different types of cases. A court which lacks
jurisdiction will lack the authority to pronounce over a dispute brought before it.

Olanrewaju Olamide33 in his article defined hierarchy of court to mean the arrangement of
courts in the method through which appeal flows. If the judgement at the lower court is not
satisfying, an appeal can be made to the higher court in order to get redress and justice.

The hierarchy of courts forms the foundation of the doctrine of stare decisis or judicial
precedent. Stare decisis is a legal principle that promotes consistency and predictability in the
application of law by requiring lower courts to follow the decisions of higher courts within
the same jurisdiction.

31
Lateef M.A., “Jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria” in
<[Link] Accessed
28th April 2024.
32
Umana v., “Judicial Precedent and Hierarchy of Courts in Nigeria” in
<[Link] Accessed 28th April 2024.
33
Olanrewaju O., “Hierarchy of Courts”, in < [Link] Accessed 28th March
2024

29
The Supreme court in Osakue v Federal College of Education (Technical) Asaba & ors 34
stated that stare decisis means to abide by the former precedent where the same points came
again in litigation

The hierarchical structure ensures that decisions made by higher courts are binding on lower
courts and become precedents for future cases. Judicial precedent is a basic principle for the
administration of justice in Nigeria, it forms a part and parcel with the Nigeria judiciary as it
is one of the basic principles where its usefulness far out ways any imperfection it may
possess.

The Nigerian Judiciary, despite the innovations and constitutional safeguards in ensuring
justice delivery still experiences some challenges that undermine its efforts to ensure that
justice is delivered.

Lohya. I. Lakai35 identified some of these challenges to include: Delay in Trials, Executive
High Handedness and Lawlessness, Corruption, Insufficient Funding and Financial
Dependence on the executive Arm of Government, Ethio religious bias and Justice
Compromise, Dependence of the Executive Arm of Government for Justice Enforcement,
internal interference, etc. However, for the purpose of this research work, emphasis will be
made on the delay in trials.

2.2.2 THE CONCEPT OF DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Blacks law dictionary36 provides that justice is the fair treatment of people; the quality of
being fair or reasonable; the legal system by which people and their causes are judged; the
fair and proper administration of laws.

According to Yusuf [Link], SAN37, Administration of justice is the whole plenitude of

adjudication and dispensation of justice.

According to the Brittanica Dictionary38 delay is defined as, a situation in which something
happens later than it should the amount of time that you must wait for something that is late

34
(2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 1
35
Lohya I. L., “The Nigerian Judiciary in the 21st Century and The Challenges in Justice Delivery” in
<[Link] Accessed 28th March 2024.
36
Bryan A. G. (ed), Blacks Laws Dictionary, 11th ed, (West Publishing Co; 2019)

37
Yusuf O.A., “Delay In The Administration Of Justice At The Magistrate Court- Factors Responsible And
Solution” in [Link] Accessed 17th May 2024
38
“Brittanica Dictionary” in [Link] Accessed 17th May 2024

30
The concept of delay in the administration of justice refers to the undesirable and prolonged
length of time it takes for legal proceedings to reach a resolution.

Dr. Agbonika39 stated that in spite of the various machineries for justice administration, the
problems of delays have rendered the quick dispensation of justice more of a myth than a
reality. Experience has revealed that delay is often encountered in the dispensation of
criminal justice. Indeed, the trend of delay in the system runs pre-trail stage, trial stage and
post-trial.

A Pre-trial stage is a preliminary stage to a matter, before such a case gets to the desk of the
court of its registrar. The objective of this stage is to ascertain whether the case in which the
suspect was accused of is worthy or substantive enough to file an indictment/Charge against
the accused in the court. The Pre-trial stage is also to discover necessary information that
forms a part of or relates to the case at hand. At this stage, it is important to find evidences
that can prove or disprove the guilt of the accused40.

The trial stage is the most sacrosanct and mandatory aspect of the three stages listed above.
For the trial stage to commence, the court would have issued a date for mention of such case
to the registerer who then inform the lawyers 41. The trial stage begins with an opening
statement of both parties with the prosecution being the first and follows after is the
examination of witnesses by both the prosecution and the defense counsel and lastly the
closing statement is made by both parties. The trial stage is generally concluded by the
announcement of judgement, which may either find the defendant guilty or acquit him of the
charge against Him. However, the trial stage may also be concluded either by dismissing or
striking out the case.

Lastly the post-trial stage consists of an appeal or an enforcement of the court’s decision.
After a trial may have been so concluded at the trial stage, the provision of the law provides a
remedy to any aggrieved party to the suit who is not satisfied with the decision made by the
court, to appeal the decision according to the hierarchy of court. However, where there is no
appeal, then there has to be an execution of the court’s decision42.

39
Agbonika J. A. M. “Delay in the Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria: Issues from a Nigerian
Viewpoint” in [Link] Accesed 17th may 2024
40
“The Fundamental Stages of Trial in A Criminal Litigation (Pre-Trial, Trial And Post Trial)” in <
[Link] Accessed 28th April 2024.
41
Ibid
42
Ibid

31
Justice Niki Tobi43 had observed that one perennial problem in the administration of justice in
any legal system is the question of delay. There is so much delay in the administration of
justice in Nigeria that one wonders whether the parties get value justice at the end. A
situation for instance where litigation at times takes some six years or more to be completed
in the High Court is not good enough. Cases of delay must be addressed if the rule of law is
to have any meaning.

In a related development, former president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo 44 decried the ugly
trend of delay in our justice delivery system, when he remarked that “my lords, the
inexcusable delay in our justice delivery system is a great concern to me and it must be to
your lordships.” “Concern” is perhaps euphemistic description, can find for a most
scandalously embarrassing situation where a simple case of breach of contract will endure for
five or more years in the court of first instance, and, last for 15 years before the final
determination in our Apex Court. The position is even worse and more pathetic in criminal
cases, particularly when the accused person who enjoys the constitutional presumption of
innocence until proved otherwise and who stands the chance of an acquittal in the end is in
the meantime, kept in custody.

Osipitan45 opines that delay in the quick dispensation of justice, arguably remains the most
perturbing aspect of justice administration. Faultless criminal rules are destined to become
redundant unless adequate safeguards exist for substantial minimization of delays in the
criminal justice system.

A preliminary point which must be borne in mind is the fact that some kind of delay is
inevitable in the criminal justice system. Consequently, the distinction between avoidable and
unavoidable delays must be borne in mind. Thus, while the Criminal Justice System
disapproves unnecessary delays, it condones delays which are necessary and desirable.
Against this backdrop, it has been held that even where the grant of request for adjournment
will result in delayed trial, such request should at least in the interest of fair trial be granted. 46

43
Tobi, N., “Law, Judiciary and Nigerian Democracy” in Ayua, I. A. (ed.) Law Justice and the Nigerian Society –
Essays in Honour of Hon Justice Mohammed Bellow, (Lagos: Nigerian Institute of Advance Legal Studies; 1995),
135-136
44
Olusegun O., “Address at the All Nigerian Judges Conference 2003” in All Nigerian Judges Conference 2003
(Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd., 2005) xxix-xxx
45
Ibid 25
46
ibid

32
Mbanefo JSC (as he then was)47 admirably expressed this view thus it is necessary in dealing
with matters of this kind to bear in mind the justifiable anxiety of the Magistrate to see that
the cases are disposed of with minimum delay. It is in the accuser’s interest that this should
be so. After six months and several adjournments, one can understand the Magistrate’s desire
to dispose of the case. But this should not be done at the expense of giving the accused
person adequate opportunity of defending himself. What emerges from the careful analysis of
the views reflected above is that while justice must not be delayed, there is hardly any virtue
in hurried justice. Accordingly, the Criminal Justice System must seek to strike an
equilibrium between delayed and hurried justice.

In Chairman Npc V. Chairman Ikere L.G. A 48 it was stated that Justice delayed it is often said
is justice denied, but it is equally true that justice hurried is justice buried.

Jahan Ara49 posited that the phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" is often used to
emphasize the importance of timely and efficient delivery of justice. When a legal system
fails to provide justice in a timely manner, it can lead to frustration, loss of faith in the
system, and even further injustice. However, a rush to judgment can also lead to incorrect and
unjust outcomes. As a result, the phrase "Justice hurried is justice buried" is also used to
caution against hasty decisions in the name of expediency. When judges, juries, or
prosecutors are pressured to make hasty decisions, they may overlook important evidence or
make mistakes. This can lead to wrongful convictions, acquittals of guilty defendants, or
other unjust outcomes. Justice hurried is justice buried" is a phrase that suggests that justice
can be undermined if legal proceedings are rushed or incomplete.

Thus, Olatawura in Agiende Ayambi v. The State50 held that a criminal trial which lasted for
over two years could not be said to have been conducted within a reasonable time

This is to say that there is a reason why judicial proceedings must be conducted in a certain
way. There is a good chance that justice will not be served. I feel it’s better to wait for
enough proof than to hurriedly convict a person. If the judgement is delayed due to lack of

47
ibid
48
(2001) 90 LRCN 2803.

49
Jahan A., “Justice delayed is Justice denied & Justice hurried is Justice buried: Reformation of Justice sys to
meet the ends of justice without delay & haste” in [Link]
hurried-buried-reformation-system-jahan-ara/ Accessed 18th May 2024.
50
(1985), 6 NCLR, 141.

33
proof, then it shouldn’t be deemed injustice. 51 But in case the judgement is delayed due to
corruption, infrastructural deficiency, ploys of litigants, administrative inefficiency,
insufficient processes or staffs, problem of case flow management, etc. then sure that is
injustice.

2.2.3 PROCEDURAL BOTTLENECKS AND THEIR ROLE IN DELAYING COURT

JUDGEMENTS IN NIGERIA
According to Iva Krasteva52, In the simplest definition, a process bottleneck is a work stage
that gets more work requests than it can process at its maximum throughput capacity. That
causes an interruption to the flow of work and delays across the production process.

Veltman53 defined a bottleneck as an activity within a system that limit or narrow down the
performance of such institutions. Kaplan54 in his own opinion viewed a bottleneck as a
constraint which is a situational factor which makes the achievements of objectives more
difficult than it would otherwise be. A point of congestion in a system that occurs when
workloads arrive at a given point more quickly than that point can handle them. The
inefficiencies brought about by the bottleneck often create a queue and a longer overall cycle
time.

According to Mariam Webster dictionary, judicial process is the series of steps in the course
of the administration of justice through the established system of courts. The Judicial
procedure is to be just, fair and reasonable and it cannot defeat or undermine the principles on
which it stands or be so pedantic so as to frustrate the object of furthering the ends of justice.

In Criminal trial, a procedural irregularity is not regarded as fatal, unless it has occasioned in
prejudice to the accused in his defense. Law is settled on the point that if there is substantial
compliance with the procedure and the accused is not prejudiced and has got a fair
opportunity to defend himself, the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial
non-compliance leading to prejudice to his defense. 55 However, there are various obstacles or
51
“Justice Delayed is Justice Denied Vs. Justice Hurried is Justice Buried” in
<[Link] Accessed
18th May 2024
52
Krasteva I. “What Are Bottlenecks? A Guide to Fixing Business Processes” in [Link]
management/pull/whatisbottleneck#:~:text=In%20the%20simplest%20definition%2C%20a,delays%20across
%20the%20production%20process. Accessed may 26th 2024
53
Veltman, M. “Bottleneck Accounting”, (Maandblad voor Accountancy enbedrijfs economic; 2011.)
54
Kaplan, R.S “Advanced management Accounting”, (Prentice-Hall International inc :1989)
55
“Major Bottlenecks In Procedural Laws Affecting Expeditious Conclusion Of Criminal Trials And Measures
Needed To Remove Such Bottlenecks” in
[Link] Accessed 18th May 2024

34
inefficiencies within the procedural framework of the court system that impede the smooth
and timely administration of justice. These bottlenecks can manifest in various ways,
including delays, inefficiencies, or complexities within the procedural rules and processes
followed by the courts. Procedural bottlenecks often result in prolonged litigation, increased
case backlogs, and delayed court judgments.

An example of procedural complexity in the judiciary is the strict adherence to technicalities

and intricate filing requirements. In many legal systems, including Nigeria, there are specific
rules and procedures that must be followed when filing court documents, serving legal
notices, or complying with deadlines. Failure to strictly adhere to these procedural
requirements can result in significant delays and even the dismissal of a case. An example of
Filing requirement in the High Court of Lagos State {Civil Procedure} Rules, 201956;

Pre-Action Protocol Form O1.57 Any party who intends to commence any proceeding vide a
writ of summons or originating summons must file along with-it Pre-Action Protocol Form
01 with accompanying processes which also can be referred to as Action Protocol Bundle,
which consists of:

1. FORM 01

2. Letter(s) of Demand or Claims written by the Claimant to the Defendant.

3. The Defendant or Respondent’s response if any

4. Other Documents which the Plaintiff intends to Rely on at the trial

5. Affidavit of Facts

6. Statement of Intent or Reason(s) for Litigation

Additionally, in Nigeria, there are specific rules regarding the service of court processes, such
as summonses and notices, to the opposing party.

According to Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule, 2019 58, originating processes are to
be personally served on the Defendants. However, Rule 5 59 thereof provides that where

56
Ayodeji A., “Comparative Overview of Filing Procedures, General Defaults and Payment of Default Fees in
the High Court of Lagos State {Civil Procedure} Rules, 2019” in
[Link]
payment-of-default-fees-in-the-high-court-of-lagos-state-civil-procedure-rules-2019/ Accessed 19th May 2024.
57
(Order 5 Rules 2{E} And 5 {3}{E})
58
Order 6 rule 2
59
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule, 2019

35
personal service cannot be effected, substituted service of such Originating Processes shall be
effected on the Defendant

These rules outline the acceptable methods of service, the timelines for service, and the
necessary proof of service. If the service is not carried out in strict compliance with these
rules, it may be deemed defective, requiring the process to be served again, causing delays in
the progress of the case.

Moreover, procedural bottleneck can arise from the need for various pre-trial procedures,
such as discovery or pre-trial conferences. These procedures often involve gathering and
exchanging evidence, preparing witness lists, and providing detailed statements of the case.
The strict adherence to these processes can be time-consuming and require extensive
documentation, resulting in prolonged pre-trial periods.

Conclusively, although the judicial system is set up to work eventually, the strict adherence to
procedure can be exploited by litigants. This is known a delay tactics The most common
delay tactic is the raising of preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the trial
court or on mere irregularity, or on the validity of a charge itself based on some perceived
defects (sometimes imaginary and illusory)60

2.2.4 THE CONCEPT OF REASONABLE TIME IN ADMINISTERING JUSTICE.

US Legal61 defined Reasonable time refers to the amount of time that is fairly required to do
whatever is required to be done, conveniently under the permitted circumstances.

The Supreme Court had cause to define ‘reasonable’ in Okeke v The State 62 when it held
thus: The word ‘reasonable’ in its ordinary meaning means moderate, tolerable or not
excessive. What is reasonable in relation to the question whether an accused has a fair trial
within a reasonable time depends on the circumstances of each particular case, including the
place or country where the trial took place, the resources and infrastructures available to the
appropriate organs in the country. It is, therefore, misleading to use the standard or situation
of things in one or a particular country to determine the question whether trials of criminal
cases in another country involve an unreasonable delay. A demand for a speedy trial which

60
Monye J, Obiagbaoso P. Obidegwu R. “Where are we in Curbing Delays in Administration of Justice in
Nigeria?” in [Link]
Accessed 26th May 2024
61
US Legal, “Reasonable Time Law and Legal Definition” in <[Link]
time/> Accessed 26th May 2024
62
(2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 25

36
has no regard to the conditions and circumstances in this country will be unrealistic and be
worse than unreasonable delay in trial itself.

Shima, ,63 in their work stated that generally, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to
what reasonable time is in any given case. This depends upon the circumstances of each case
such as the nature and complexity of the case, the time taken by the parties to introduce
evidence, adjournments demanded by legal practitioners and the availability of competent
courts, the congested nature of the calendar of the courts.

In the case of Salu v Egeigbon, 64 the Supreme Court had cause or occasion to aptly capture
the position when it held: There is a general saying that justice delayed is justice denied and
section 33 (1) of the 1979 Constitution (now section 36 of the 1999 constitution as amended)
gives every person the right to have his civil rights and obligations determined by a court
after a fair hearing and within a reasonable time… If, therefore, a party indulges in asking for
incessant and unreasonable adjournments, a trial court should not allow him use the due
process of law to defeat the ends of justice. That court, which is the trial court, ought to
weigh the reasons given for the application for adjournment and the surrounding
circumstances.

In light of this Samba J.N. 65 opined that the court is required to balance the conflictual
interests of the parties on the one hand, and the society on the other. It is the effectual
balancing of these interests that is termed justice which is necessarily consonant with fair
hearing. No doubt, it is asserted that law serves the interest of the individual with the good of
the society in view and that justice delayed is justice denied; on the other hand, a hasty trial
without the due process of law is also justice denied.

Having discussed various reviews, on Nigeria Judicial System, The Concept of Delayed
Court Judgement, Procedural Bottlenecks and Their Role in Delaying Court Judgements in
Nigeria, The Concept of Reasonable Time in Administering Justice, with the aim of
providing a comprehensive and critical analysis of existing knowledge and research thus
dissecting the problem of delay in the judiciary and establishing it as a growing concern in
the judicial arm.

63
Shima, V.A. and Aboho B., “Trial Within a Reasonable Time Under Nigerian Law: A Legal Myth or Reality?” in
< [Link]
64
(1994) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 2) 223 at 246
65
Samba, J. N., Fundamental Concepts of Jurisprudence. (Bookmakers Publishing Co; 2003)

37
CHAPTER 3

THE NATURE OF THE NIGERIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

3.1 INTRODUCTION
To gain a comprehensive understanding of delayed justice, it is essential to delve into the
intricacies of the Nigerian judicial system. The word “Judiciary” has been defined as the
court system of a country. It is the third arm of government which protects and ensures
democracy as well as interprets the law and administers justice. In Nigeria, the judiciary is
playing an important role by virtue of Section 6 (1). 66 The role of the judiciary cannot be over
emphasized as it is a stabilizer in the political system and has the extra duty of the protection
of the constitution. This chapter aims to thoroughly examine various aspects including the
historical origins, intricate structural framework, procedures for judicial appointments, and
the crucial aspect of judicial independence. within this context. By exploring these
dimensions, we can elucidate the complexities that contribute to the phenomenon of delayed
justice within Nigeria.

3.2 HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF THE NIGERIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM

The historical origins of the Nigerian judicial system can be traced back to the colonial era
when Nigeria was under British rule. The introduction of British law and legal institutions
significantly shaped the foundation of Nigeria's judicial system as it exists today. However, it
would be remiss not to acknowledge that although the present Nigerian judicial system is
structured along British lines, the concept of judicial functions predates colonialism by
centuries within the diverse traditional systems of Nigeria 67. These indigenous systems
encompassed a rich tapestry of customary laws, community-based dispute resolution
mechanisms, and principles of justice that were integral to societal cohesion and governance
long before the arrival of British colonial administrators. Despite the subsequent imposition
of British legal structures, these traditional judicial practices continue to influence and inform
aspects of contemporary Nigerian jurisprudence, underscoring the enduring legacy and
resilience of indigenous legal frameworks in the country's legal landscape.

66
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
67
Duru O. W. C., “The Role and Historical Development of The Judiciary in Nigeria” in
[Link] Accessed 16th June 2024

38
One example of how traditional practices have influenced contemporary Nigerian
jurisprudence is through the recognition and incorporation of customary law within the legal
system. Customary law, rooted in indigenous customs, traditions, and community norms,
predates colonialism and continues to play a significant role in resolving disputes and
administering justice, especially in rural and traditional communities.

In Nigeria, customary law is recognized and applied alongside common law and statutory
law, particularly in matters relating to marriage, inheritance, land tenure, and traditional
governance. This recognition is enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution and various state laws,
which empower customary courts to adjudicate cases based on local customs and traditions.

The Nigerian Judiciary has had a history of 4 distinct eras namely, the period before 1842,
1845-1912, 1914 to 1953 and 1954 to date. 68 The period before 1842 consist of the traditional
judicial setting of the three major ethnic group; Yoruba, Igbo and the Hausa/Fulani. After
1842, the power to administer and dispense justice in Nigeria was mainly vested in native
courts. dispensing justice, fashioned out systems of taxation, civil laws and procedure, penal
law and sentencing policies including death sentence. It should be noted that these Native
Courts are the forerunners of the present Customary Area and Sharia Courts. With the advent
of the colonialists in the Southern part of Nigeria between 1843-1913, the British through a
combination of Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1843 and 1893 established law under which
various courts were set up. In 1854, the earliest courts called the Courts of Equity were
established by the British in the Southern parts of Nigeria particularly Brass, Benin, Okrika
and Opobo.69

Operating simultaneously with the courts of equity and consular courts were courts that were
established by the Royal Niger Company. By a Royal Charter granted in 1886, the company
had the power to govern and administer justice in its area of operations until the Charter was
removed in 1899. The establishment of these British courts did not however, preclude the
operation of native courts, in so far as the customs administered by the latter were not
repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience.70

In 1863, by Ordinance No 11 of 1863, the Supreme Court of Lagos was established, it had
both civil and criminal jurisdiction. In 1900, via the Supreme Court Proclamation Order No.
68
Yusuf A., “The Evolution Of Ideal Nigerian Judiciary In The New Millennium” in
[Link]
[Link] Accessed 16th June 2024
69
Ibid
70
Ibid

39
6, a Supreme Court was established for the Southern Nigerian protectorate. The Court
exercised same powers and jurisdictions as were vested in Her Majesty’s High Court of
Justice in England.

This arrangement endured until 1914 when the Northern and Southern protectorate of Nigeria
were amalgamated. Provincial courts were abolished and its place were established High
Courts which consisted of Chief Judges, Judges and assistant Judges. Below these High
Courts were magistrate courts. Native courts also retained their position at the bottom of the
judicial hierarchy. The Supreme Court exercised appellate jurisdiction over the High Courts.
Between 1934 and 1954 appeals from the Supreme Court went to the West African Court of
Appeal (WACA). Appeals from the WACA went to the Privy Council.

However, from 1954, appeals from the Supreme Court of Nigeria then went directly to the
Privy Council. At the regional level was a High Court presided over by a Chief Judge.
Appeals from each of the Regional High Courts went to the Federal Supreme Courts, while
that from Customary or Native Courts Grade A went to the Regional High Courts.71

After Nigeria gained independence in 1960, the Privy council still remained the highest court
of the country, entertaining appeals from the Federal Supreme Court. It was in 1963 that a
new difference was introduced, with the federal supreme court abolished to establish a new
court known as the Supreme Court of Nigeria to be the highest court in the country. This
Supreme Court exists till present, headed by the Chief Justice.

Presently, the judicial system is made up of other courts like, the Court of Appeal, High
Courts of states, High Court of the federal capital territory, High Court of the federation,
Sharia court of Appeal, Customary court of Appeal, National industrial court, Magistrate
courts, Customary courts, Sharia Courts.72

3.3 STRUCTURE OF THE NIGERIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM

The structure of the Nigerian judicial system underpins the administration of justice within
the country. From its roots in colonialism to its evolution through independence and
constitutional reforms, Nigeria's judiciary has undergone significant development. This
system is characterized by a hierarchy of courts with distinct jurisdictions, encompassing
71
Ibid
72
“History of the Nigerian Legal System” in [Link]
Accessed on 16th june 2024.

40
both statutory and customary legal practices. The hierarchy of courts is essential for ensuring
the orderly resolution of disputes and the interpretation and application of laws. From lower
courts responsible for initial trials to higher appellate courts that review decisions, each level
plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding constitutional rights.

3.3.1 SUPREME COURT

Section 230(1) of the 1999 Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of Nigeria. It is the
highest court in Nigeria and the court of last resort. It is situated in the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja. The Chief Justice of the Federation who is the head of the judiciary in
Nigeria presides over the Supreme Court. The court consists of the Chief Justice of Nigeria
and such number of justices not exceeding twenty-one as may be prescribed by the National
Assembly. Ordinarily, the court is duly constituted with not less than five justices of the
court, except where it is exercising its original jurisdiction or a matter which involves a
question of interpretation or application of the constitution or whether any provision relating
to Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution has been, or is likely to be contravened.
In this regard, the court is duly constituted if it consists of seven Justices of the court.73

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has both original and appellate jurisdiction. The original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is contained in Section 232(1) of the Constitution. It
provides that;

“The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in
any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that
dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a
legal right depends.”

Furthermore, the National Assembly has the authority to grant the Supreme Court additional
original jurisdiction. The constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from exercising original
jurisdiction in criminal cases.74 The National Assembly has enacted the Supreme Court
(Additional Original Jurisdiction)75 by which additional original jurisdiction was conferred on
the Supreme Court. By section1 (1) of that Act, it is provided that in addition to the
jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court by section 232(1) of the Constitution, the
court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute (in so
73
Sokefun J., Nduka C. N., “The Court System in Nigeria: Jurisdiction and Appeals” in
[Link] Accessed on 16th June, 2024
74
Section 232(2) of the Constitution
75
Cap S16, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

41
far as that dispute involves any question whether of law or fact or in which the existence or
extent of a legal right depends) between: (a) The National Assembly and the President; (b)
The National Assembly and any State House of Assembly; and (c) The National Assembly
and the State of the Federation.

In Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation 76, the Plaintiff

brought the suit at the Supreme Court pursuant to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. The complaint was in respect of the activities of the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) against the plaintiff. The Supreme Court struck out the suit for want of
jurisdiction because EFCC is a corporate legal entity which can sue and be sued on its own
name and not necessarily an agent of the first defendant. The court was of the opinion that the
claim does not qualify as a dispute within the meaning of section 232 of the 1999
Constitution, not being a dispute between the Federation and the State.

In Attorney General of Anambra State v. Attorney General of the Federation 77, the question
for determination was whether the tenure of office of the governor of Anambra State is a
dispute of such a nature that could legitimately result in the invocation of the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court struck out the suit and held that in order for the
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to be invoked pursuant to Section 232 of the 1999
Constitution, there must exist a legal right on the part of the claimant and the dispute or
controversy must be one between the Federation and a State of the Federation. The court
went further to hold that while it may be true that the Governor of Anambra State qua
Governor might have been short changed on the question of tenure, that fact does not, ipso
facto, make such an issue one between Anambra State as an entity and the Federation. The
suit therefore remains incompetent and ought to be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria is as provided in Section 233(1)
of the Constitution. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court confers on the Supreme
Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal. An
appeal may either lie to the Supreme Court as of right or with leave of that court or the Court
of Appeal. An appeal shall lie as of right from decisions of the Court of Appeal to the
Supreme Court in the following cases78

76
(2007) 2 S.C. 146
77
(2007) 5-6S.C. 192
78
section 233(2)

42
“(a) Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or
criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal;

(b) Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or

application of the Constitution;

(c) Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the
provisions of Chapter IV has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened in relation to any
person;

(d) Decisions in any criminal proceedings in which any person has been sentenced to death
by the Court of Appeal or in which the Court of Appeal has affirmed a sentence of death by
any other court;

(e) Decisions on any question;

(i) Whether any person has been validly elected to the office of President or Vice-President
under the constitution;

(ii) Whether the term of office of President or Vice President has ceased;

(iii) Whether the office of President or Vice President has become vacant; and

(iv) Whether any person has been validly elected to the office of the Governor or Deputy
Governor under this Constitution;

(v) Whether the term of office of a Governor or Deputy Governor has become vacant; and

(f) Such other cases as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”

The Supreme Court of Nigeria, like similar institutions in other political systems, epitomizes
the Nigerian Judiciary. It not only plays a significant role in constitutional matters but also
fashions out the judicial policies affecting the political environment generally. In the words of
Graham Douglas, ‘although many rules and principles of law have survived to this day from
decisions of courts of first instance, it is more to the courts at the pinnacle of the judicial
system that the glory of the dynamism in law creation must largely go. It serves as the
overseer of the judicial branch and is the master of the judicial house.’79

79
Ibid7

43
3.3.2 COURT OF APPEAL
The Court of Appeal holds a pivotal position within Nigeria's judicial hierarchy, functioning
as the penultimate court. Before its inception, a direct appeal route existed from the High
Courts to the Federal Supreme Court, which became the nation’s apex court in 1963
following the cessation of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As the
volume of cases increased, there arose a pressing need for an intermediate judicial body to
enhance the efficiency of justice delivery. Responding to this need, the Government of the
Western State established the Western Nigeria Court of Appeal in 1967, recognized under the
Constitution (Miscellaneous) (No. 2) Decree of 1967, which abolished the previous system of
direct appeals to the Supreme Court. This court served as a precursor to the modern Court of
Appeal in several respects. However, mounting caseloads at the Federal Supreme Court
prompted renewed discussions about establishing a national intermediate court to alleviate its
burden.

In 1974, the Udoji Commission inaugurated a Special Task Force on the Judiciary, which
recommended transforming the existing Supreme Court into the National Court of Appeal.
Subsequently, the Constitution Drafting Committee, convened in September 1975, endorsed
the creation of a Federal Court of Appeal through its Judicial System Sub-Committee.

The formal establishment of the Court of Appeal occurred in 1976 under the Court of Appeal
Decree (now Cap. C36, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004). This appellate court was
empowered to hear appeals, both civil and criminal, originating from the Federal High Court,
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, and other designated high courts across the
nation, as well as the National Industrial Court. It also hears appeals from the Customary
Court of Appeal as well as Sharia Court of Appeal.

The Court was similarly vested with powers to hear Appeals from Court Martials, Election
Petition Tribunals, and some other Administrative Tribunals such as the Code of Conduct
Tribunal, Investment and Securities Tribunals, and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary
Committee. The Decree was eventually superseded by Section 217(1) of the Constitution of
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, which formally established the Court to be known as the
‘Federal Court of Appeal.’ However, owing to military intervention in 31st December 1983
the name of the Court was changed from Federal Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. The
1976 Decree itself was amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Decree No. 65 of

44
1993, the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Act 2005, and Court of Appeal (Amendment) Act,
2013, which among other things have increased the number of Justices of the Court.

The Court of Appeal is now established by virtue of Section 237 of the 1999 Constitution of
Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This provision applies concurrently with the
Court of Appeal Act, 1976 which as stated earlier, has been subsequently amended.

The Court of Appeal is for administrative purposes divided into judicial divisions each
presided over by a Presiding Justice. However, the law recognizes only one Court of Appeal
and decisions of any of the judicial divisions are treated as decisions of the court. The Court
of Appeal has 20 Divisions spread across the Six Geopolitical Zones of Nigeria as
follows: Lagos, Kaduna, Ibadan, Enugu, Benin, Jos, Port-Harcourt, Abuja, Calabar, Ilorin,
Owerri, Sokoto, Yola, Ekiti, Akure, Makurdi, Asaba, Awka, Gombe and Kano80

The Court of Appeal is composed of the President of the Court of Appeal and other justices
of the Court of Appeal not being less than forty-nine 81. Like the Supreme Court of Nigeria,
the Court of Appeal has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Section 239(1) of the
Constitution provides for the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. By the provisions
of that section the court of appeal has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine
any question as to whether;

(a) Any person has been validly elected to the office of President or Vice President under the
Constitution; or,

(b) The term of office of the President or Vice-President has ceased; or,

(c) The office of President or Vice President has become vacant82

Section 240 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeal. The Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from
the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the High
Court of a state, the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the
Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja, the Customary Court of Appeal of a State; and, a court martial or other
tribunals as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

80
“A Brief History and Evolution of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria” in
[Link] Accessed 16th June 2024
81
Section 237(2) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
82
Buhari v. Obasanjo (2004) 1 W.R.N. 1

45
Section 241(1) of the 1999 Constitution appeals lie as of right to the Court of Appeal from
decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court in the following cases:

(a) Final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a
High Court sitting at first instance;

(b) Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings, where the ground of appeal involves
questions of law alone;

(c) Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or

application of this Constitution;

(d) Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the
provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is been or is likely to be, contravened
in relation to any person;

(e) Decisions in any criminal proceedings in which the Federal High Court or a High Court
has imposed a sentence of death;

(f) Decisions made or given by the Federal High Court or a High Court –

(i) Where the liberty of a person or the custody of an infant is concerned;

(ii) Where an injunction or the appointment of a receiver is granted or refused;

(iii) In the case of a decision determining the case of a creditor or the liability of a
contributory or other officer under any enactment relating to companies in respect of
misfeasance or otherwise;

(iv) In the case of a decree nisi in a matrimonial or a decision in an admiralty action

determining liability, and

(v) In such other cases as may be prescribed by any law in force in Nigeria

By section 241(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides that nothing in the foregoing confers
any right of appeal:

(a) From a decision of the Federal High Court or any High Court granting unconditional
leave to defend an action;

46
(b) From an order absolute, for the dissolution or nullity of marriage in favor of any party
who, having had time and opportunity to appeal from the decree nisi on which the order was
founded, has not appealed from that decree nisi; and,

(c) Without leave of the Federal High Court or a High Court or of the court of appeal, form a
decision of the Federal High Court or High Court made with the consent of the parties or as
to costs only

In all other cases and subject to the provisions of Section 241 discussed above, appeals lie
from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal with leave
of either the lower court or the Court of Appeal. In determining an application for leave to
appeal in respect of any civil or criminal proceedings in which an appeal has been brought to
the Federal High Court or a High Court from any other court, the court of appeal may
dispense with oral hearings and base its decision on the records of proceedings, if the Court
of Appeal is of the opinion that the interests of justice do not require an oral hearing. Section
243(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution provide for the exercise of right of appeal from the
Federal High Court, National Industrial Court or a High Court in respect of civil and criminal
matters:

(a) In the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the
Federal High Court or the High court or the Court of Appeal at the instance of any other
person having an interest in the matter, and in the case of criminal proceedings at the instance
of an accused person, or, subject to the provisions of the Constitution and any powers
conferred upon the Attorney General of the Federation or the attorney General of a State to
take over and continue or to discontinue such proceedings, at the instance of such other
authorities or persons as may be prescribed;

(b) In accordance with any Act of the National Assembly and rules of court for the time being
in force regulating the powers, practice and procedure of the court of appeal.

(2) An appeal shall lie from the decision of the National Industrial court as of right to the
Court of Appeal on questions of Fundamental Rights as contained in Chapter 1V of this
Constitution as it relates to matters upon which the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction.

By virtue of Section 243(2) the right of appeal is removed with respect to issues to which the
National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to determine except when human rights are
implicated in the issues before the National Industrial Court. It is rather curious that the

47
National Industrial Court became implicitly the court of last resort in respect of issue and
matters for which it has jurisdiction.83

By virtue Section 244 (1) of the Constitution appeals lie as of right from decisions of a
Sharia Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal in civil proceedings with respect to any
question of Islamic personal law which the Sharia Court of Appeal is competent to decide.

Also, by virtue Ssection 245 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, appeals lie as of right from
decisions of a Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal in civil proceedings with
respect to any question of customary law and such other matters as may be prescribed and
such other matters as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

By Ssection 246(1) of the 1999 constitution, appeals lie as of right to the Court of Appeal
from decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal established in the Fifth Schedule to the
Constitution. Similarly appeals lie as of right from decisions of the National Assembly
Election Tribunals and Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunals.

Section 246(2) of the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to confer jurisdiction
upon the Court of Appeal to determine appeals from any decision of any other court of law or
tribunal established by the National Assembly. By Section 246(1) and (3) of the 1999
Constitution the decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals arising from election
petitions are final.84

3.3.3 FEDERAL HIGH COURT

The need for the establishment of the High Court for the determination of cases and matters
within the Exclusive Legislative list, as is the customary in countries with the Federal System
of Government was first noted during the constitutional Conference leading to Independence,
however no step was taken in that regard until the promulgation of the Federal Revenue
Court Decree85.

The Federal Revenue Court (as Federal High Court was then called) was established by the
Federal Revenue Act 1973 (1973 No.13). The Court was however christened “The Federal

83
Ibid 7
84
Awuse v. Odili (2004) 6 W.R.N. 1
85
No. 13 1973; now Federal High Court Act Cap F12, LFN 2004

48
High Court” by Section 228 (1) and 230 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1979.

Since its establishment, the Court faced persistent controversies regarding its jurisdiction.
However, these disputes were ultimately resolved by the enactment of Section 230(1) of the
1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The jurisdiction of the Court as
provided by section 7 of the Federal Revenue Court Act 1973 covered revenue of the
Government of the federation, taxation of Companies and other bodies or persons subject to
Federal taxation; customs and excise duties, banking, foreign exchange, currency or other
fiscal measures; operation of the Companies Act; copyright, patents, admiralty etc. Section 8
of the Federal Revenue Court Act expressly vested the court with exclusive jurisdiction over
the matters specified in section 7 above.

The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as it was restyled was basically same as under
section 7 of the Federal Revenue Court Act 1973. In 1991, the then Federal Military
Government promulgated Federal High Court (Amendment) Decree. 86 The Decree expanded
the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and conferred exclusive jurisdiction to it for the
first time. Further amendment was effected on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in
1993 by the promulgation of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree. 87 The
1999 Constitution repealed the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree.88

The Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court of the FCT and State
High Court in respect of fundamental Rights matters by virtue of Section 46(1) of the
Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria, 1999.

To facilitate the expeditious determination of Civil cases and Matters before the Court, the
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 was enacted by the Chief Judge of the
Federal High Court pursuant to Section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 as amended. The new Rules have several innovative provisions which cover all
aspects of practice and procedure before the Court and have a (Fundamental objective) for a
(just and expeditious disposition of cases) in view. In 2011, a new Admiralty Procedure Rules
were made by the Chief Judge in order to aid a more expeditious hearing of maritime claims
in which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction and which claims as with

86
No. 60 of 1991
87
No. 107 of 1993.
88
S.1 and Schedule to the Constitution (certain Consequential Repeals) Decree No. 63 1999.

49
intellectual property rights, trade marks, patents and designs sometimes have international
dimension which may involve foreign companies and interests.

The Federal High Court as a premier Court of first instance has recorded impressive growth
since its inception in 1973 and has become, unarguably an important pillar among the Courts
in the Federal Judiciary of Nigeria. The Court has thirty-nine Judicial Divisions, spread
across in thirty-six States including the Federal Capital territory of the country. The Federal
High Court as part of capacity and human development has launched an E-filing platform. It
has changed the orthodox notice board to electronic display system on all the floors of the
court. Even stenographers are now employed in our courts to record court proceedings. This
means that records of proceedings are readily available on request and are no longer in
longhand.89

3.3.4 THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

Historically, the (NIC) was established in 1976 pursuant to the Trade Disputes Decree No. 7
of that year, but it actually took off two years later in 1978. It is pertinent to note that prior to
the establishment of the NIC, industrial relations law and practice was modeled on the non-
interventionist and voluntary model of the British system. The statutory mechanism for the
settlement of trade disputes was found in the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Enquiry) Act.
The Act gave powers to the Minister of Labour to intervene by way of conciliation, formal
inquiry and arbitration where negotiation had broken down. The major features of the non-
interventionist model were that it was totally at the discretion of the parties to determine
whether or not they would surrender to the jurisdiction of the Minister.

Thus, the Minister could not compel the parties to accept his intervention, but could only
appoint a Conciliator upon the application of the parties and could only set up an Arbitral
Tribunal by the consent of both parties. In the second place, there was no permanent
institution created to handle and settle labour disputes. An ad hoc body had to be set up for a
particular dispute and once it delivered its decision it became functus officio.

Given the dynamics of employment interrelationship and the challenges of ever-expanding

global society, the need to establish a specialized Court to tackle disputes connected with
labor and industrial relations has become poignant. This is because labour and industrial
disputes are economic issues which need expeditious dispensation and it was felt that the

89
“Court History” in [Link] Accessed 16th June 2024.

50
regular Courts which were already saddled with enough duties should be spared the
additional duties of handling labor and industrial cases.

It was also felt that the procedures at the non-specialized Courts were too slow and
cumbersome such that a nation desirous of rapid industrialization and socio-economic
development could not afford to be bogged down by such procedures and delays.90

Section 254(a)A of the 1999 Constitution established the National Industrial Court. The
National Industrial Court consists of the President and such number of Judges as may be
prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with
any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from
workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee,
worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

Relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions
Act, Labour Act, Employees' Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour,
employment, Industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or
Laws.91

FGN v. Adams Oshiohmole92. The case was commenced at the FCT high Court and it held
that the Nigerian Labour Congress has power to call workers on strike. On appeal to the
Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory lacked
the jurisdiction to entertain the matter being matter under item 34 of the Constitution i.e.
labour/trade disputes. The Court of Appeal then referred the case to the Federal High Court
for determination. The Federal High Court, among others, relying on section 251 of the
Constitution held that it lacked jurisdiction. It however heard the matter on other grounds.

It is worthy to note that Section 254C of the Constitution which vested the National Industrial
Court with jurisdiction has altered the relation between Nigerian municipal law and
international law. This is because for an international treaty to become operative in Nigeria
such international treaty must be enacted into law by the National Assembly in consonance
with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Constitution. Section 12(1) provides that “No
treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the

90
“National Industrial Court” in [Link] Accessed 17th June 2024.
91
S.254C (1) of the Constitution
92
[2004] 1 NLLR (Pt. 2) 326,

51
extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.” The
purport of Section 254C of the Constitution is that international treaties relating to labour has
a force of law in Nigeria upon ratification by Nigeria without first been enacted into law by
the National Assembly.

Originally the decision of the NIC on any issue was meant to be final until 1992 when Decree
7 of that year introduced section 20(3) into the TDA granting right of appeal in relation to
issues of fundamental rights which provision had been retained in the NICA 93. It was thought
that with the interposition of mediation, conciliation and arbitration undue delay would be
avoided if the decision of the NIC was made final. The view has been expressed in certain
quarters that section 9(1) of the NICA is unconstitutional 94. However, is nothing in the
provisions of the 1999 Constitution that makes section 9(i) of the NICA unconstitutional. By
virtue of section 246(2) of the Constitution, this controversy appeared not to be well-
founded.95

3.3.5 THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL

There is a Sharia Court of Appeal for the Federal Capital Territory and any state that requires
it. This court has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving
questions of Islamic personal law, which the court is competent to decide in accordance with
the constitution. The court comprises of a Grand Khadi and other Khadis as the National
Assembly or State Houses of Assembly (as the case may be) may prescribe.

Section 262(1) of the constitution provides for the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of
Appeal. In addition to such other jurisdiction as May conferred on it by the National
Assembly, the Sharia Court of Appeal shall exercise such appellate and supervisory
jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law.

3.3.6 THE CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL

There is a customary Court of Appeal for the Federal Capital Territory and any state that
requires it. This court has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings
involving questions of customary law and it comprised of a president and such number of
judges as the National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly (as the case may be) may
prescribe.
93
Section 9(2) of the NICA, 2006.
94
Schimberger Anadril Ltd V. Pengassan, Unreported Suit No. CA/L/38/2008 delivered on 10th February, 2009.
95
Babatunde A. A. O., “The National Industrial Court of Nigeria: Past, Present and Future” in
[Link] Accessed 17th June 2024.

52
Section 267 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the Jurisdiction of the Customary Court
of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory. It provides that “The Customary Court of Appeal
of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be
conferred upon it by an Act of The National Assembly exercise such appellate and
supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of customary law.”

3.3.7 HIGH COURT OF A STATE

Section 270(1) of the 1999 Constitution established the High Court of a State. By
subsection (2)(a) and (b) the High Court of a State shall consist of “a Chief Judge of the State
and such number of Judges of the High Court as may be prescribed by a law of the House of
Assembly of the State”.

Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides for the jurisdiction of the High Court of a
State. It provides that “ Subject to the provisions of section 251 and other provisions of this
Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil
proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege,
interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings
involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an
offence committed by any person.”

3.4 PROCEDURES FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

The National Judicial Council is the body that is charged with recommending to the
President/State Governor individuals for appointment into judicial posts, or for removal from
judicial posts. There are various levels of judges in Nigeria, and this sub-heading briefly
explain how they are appointed, who is qualified, and the requisite experience and knowledge
which the judges have to possess.

3.4.1 Supreme Court Justice

The Supreme court is the apex court in Nigeria, and it is headed by the Chief justice of
Nigeria. The Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, and must all be qualified legal practitioners who have been qualified for
at least 15 years. The appointment is by recommendation from the National Judicial Council.
All Supreme Court appointments must be approved by the Senate.96

96
“How to be a Judge in Nigeria” in [Link] Accessed 17th June
2024.

53
3.4.2 Appeal Court Justice
This is the second highest court in the country, and appeals from the Court of Appeal lie to
the Supreme Court. The Justices of the Appeal Court are appointed by the President of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, and must all be qualified legal practitioners who have been
qualified for at least 12years. The appointment is by recommendation from the National
Judicial Council. The court of appeal is headed by the President of the Court of Appeal.97

3.4.3 Federal High Court Judge

Judges of the Federal High Court are appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, and must have been qualified as legal practitioners for at least 10 years.
Appointments are on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council. The Federal High
Court is headed by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.98

3.4.4 Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
These Judges are appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and must
have been qualified as legal practitioners for at least 10 years. Appointments are on the
recommendation of the National Judicial Council. The court is headed by the Chief Judge of
the High Court, FCT Abuja.99

3.4.5 State High Court Judge

Judges of the High Courts of all the different States of the Federation are appointed by the
Governor of the respective State, on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.
The individual must have been qualified as legal practitioners for at least 10 years. State High
Courts are headed by the Chief Judge of the High Court of the respective States.100

3.4.6 Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal

Kadis must be legally qualified and have at least 10 years' post-call experience. Further, they
must have obtained a recognized qualification in Islamic from an institution acceptable to the
National Judicial Council. They must have considerable experience in the practice of Islamic
law or be a distinguished scholar of Islamic law. Kadis are appointed by the President of the
97
Ibid
98
Ibid
99
Ibid
100
Ibid

54
Federal Republic of Nigeria (and the Governor of the State in the case of a State Sharia Court
of Appeal) on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, and the court is headed
by a 'Grand Kadi.101

3.4.7 Judge of the Customary Court of Appeal

Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal must be legally qualified and have at least 10 years'
post- call experience. Further, they must have considerable knowledge and experience in the
practice of Customary law. The Judges in the Customary Court of Appeal of the FCT Abuja
are appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (and the Governor in the
case of the Customary Court of Appeal of a State) on the recommendation of the National
Judicial Council, and the court is headed by the President of the Customary Court of
Appeal.102

3.5 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence refers to the non-interference of the Executive, Legislature or other
private entities in judicial affairs. In other words, Judges and other judicial officers should not
be subjected to inappropriate influence from the other branches of government or private
interests.103 Judicial independence is also the principle which stipulates and ensures that
judges are not subjected to pressure and influence when adjudicating matters and are free to
make impartial decisions based solely on fact and law.104

Judicial independence plays a cardinal role in the principle of separation of powers. Without
independence, the judiciary cannot offer the checks and balances that are necessary to prevent
any branch of government from exerting too much power

Judicial independence can be classified into two broad groups:

1. institutional independence

2. decisional independence.

Institutional independence refers to the independence of the judiciary from the executive and
legislative branches of government. Decisional independence is the idea that judges should be
101
Ibid
102
Ibid
103
Leke K., “Achieving Judicial Independence in Nigeria” in [Link]
independence-nigeria-leke/ Accessed 18th June.
104
Ononye I.F., Oguekwe U. D. and Oguekwe A. U., “Independence of The Judiciary: The Nigerian Experience”
in [Link] Accessed 18th June

55
able to decide cases solely based on the law and facts without letting the media, politics or
other concerns influence their decisions, and without fearing penalty for their decisions.105

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999 (as amended) in its
frameworks to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and to strengthen democracy and
rule of law has made several provisions. Section 17(1) and (2)(e) stipulates that the
autonomy, fairness and integrity of the courts of law shall be secured and maintained. A
critical and jurisprudential perusal of section 17(1) and (2)(e) of the Constitution is that the
Constitution boldly and unequivocally guarantees judicial autonomy in its Fundamental
Objectives and Directive Principles. However, the independence of the judiciary guaranteed
under the Constitution falls under Chapter II which is non- justiciable and unenforceable by
virtue of section 6(6)(c) of the same Constitution.106

The independence of the judiciary is also constitutionally provided for in section 84 (1), (2),
(4), (7) and section 121(3) of the CFRN 1999(as amended). Section 84(1),(2) and (4),
provides that the salary and allowances of the Chief Justice of Nigeria(CJN), Supreme Court
Justices, Court of Appeal President, Court of Appeal Justices, Chief Judge and Judges of the
Federal High Court, President and Judges of the National Industrial Court, Chief Judge and
Judges of the High Court of the FCT, Grand Kadi and Kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal of
the FCT, President and Judges of the Customary Court of the FCT, and Chief Judges and
Judges of the High Court of states is made a charge on Consolidated Revenue Fund. Section
84(7) states that, the recurrent expenditure of judicial officers of the Federation shall be a
charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation while section 121(2) provides
that all monies from the State Consolidated Revenue Fund standing to the credit of the
Judiciary should be paid to the heads of Court directly. The above, arguably, grants financial
autonomy to the judiciary.107

The Constitution also fantastically created an impediment such that the President or Governor
cannot remove or appoint a judicial officer without recourse to the National Judicial Council
which recommends who is fit and proper to be so appointed. The National Judicial Council is
an institution created under section 153(1) and its compositions and powers are provided for
in paragraph 21, Part 1, Third Schedule to the CFRN 1999 (as amended). Under the said
paragraph 21, the Constitution provides that the NJC shall have the power to recommend to
105
Ibid 38
106
Ishmael G., “The Executive and Independence of the Judiciary in Nigeria”, Journal of Art, Humanity & Social
Studies, (2022), Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 57-66.
107
Ibid

56
the President or Governor the removal from office of judicial officers and also exercise
disciplinary control over such judicial officers. It follows therefore that a judicial officer
cannot be removed if there is no NJC recommendation to that effect. Thus, in Elelu Habeet v.
A.G. Federation108, the Governor of Kwara State through the State House of Assembly
purportedly removed the Chief Judge and the apex court held that the Governor cannot
remove the Chief Judge without reference to the National Judicial Council. The apex Court
also stated that by virtue of section 271 and paragraph 21(c) and (e), Part 1, Third Schedule to
the CFRN 1999(as amended), the NJC is vested exclusively with the function of
recommending to the Governor of a State qualified persons for appointments as Chief Judges
of states and other judicial officers. The National Judicial Council’s role in the appointment
and removal methods in the Constitution, no doubt, can arguably be said to guarantee the
autonomy of the judiciary109

The Constitution furthermore provides for security of tenure of judicial official in Section
291 of the 1999 Constitution which sets the age of retirement of judges at sixty-five years. It
provides that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judicial officers shall not be removed
from their offices before retirement. The retirement age for Supreme Court and Court of
Appeal justices is seventy years. However, they may leave office upon attaining sixty-five
years. Also, those of all other Courts apart from the two above may retire and leave office at
sixty-five years.

Judges should be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behavior
that render them unfit to discharge their duties. Section 292 (1) of the 1999 Constitution
provides that a judicial officer shall not be removed from office before the age of retirement
except on grounds of his: inability to perform the functions of his office due to infirmity of
the mind or body and misconduct or breach of the Code of Conduct. Suffice also to state that
a judge may be summarily dismissed for a serious misconduct in his private life. In A.G.
Cross Rivers State v. Esin,110 the Court held that a serious misconduct in the private life of a
judge may warrant his summary dismissal. This prevents judges from being removed based
on the whims of the Executive and Legislative.

From the foregoing, the provisions of sections 17, 84, 121, 153,291, 292, inter alia, the
tripartite roles of the three institutions of government under the CFRN, in the sense that the

108
(2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1318) 423
109
Ibid
110
(1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 197)365

57
removal of a judicial official by the president (or governor) must be on the recommendation
of the National Judicial Council and supported by two-third majority of the Senate (or two-
third majority of the State House of Assembly) arguably strengthen the autonomy of the
judiciary in Nigeria.

However, irrespective of these provisions and effort of the constitution to safeguard the
independence of the judiciary, it is still threatened by the interference of the other institutions
of government especially the executive Instances of this include;

The allocation of funds to the judiciary is on the Federation and State as the remuneration of
Judges is made a charge on the Federation or State Consolidated Revenue Fund (section 84 of
the 1999 Constitution). However, the involvement of the Executive in budgetary process of
the judiciary may negatively impact the independence of the judiciary. This is because the
Executive can propose unfavorable or inadequate budgetary allocation for the judiciary which
can make the Judges and other judicial officials susceptible to bribery. On another note, there
has been significant improvements made to the salary, allowances and benefits of Judges over
the years which hopefully prevents them from engaging in corruption. However, this
improvement does not extend to Magistrates, Customary, Area and Sharia Court Judges
thereby leaving them vulnerable. This is because they are not regarded as judicial officials
but as civil servants even though they perform same function as their senior counterparts.111

With respect to capital expenditure for state judiciaries, the constitution provides thus: “Any
amount standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State
shall be paid directly to the heads of the Courts concerned.” 112 This provision is often
disregarded and breached by the State Government most especially where the head of Court
within the state is not in good terms with the Governor of the State.24 Such inadequate
budgetary allocation gives rise to disastrous situation for the Judiciary. Absence of funds can
cause lack of maintenance of structures like court halls, chambers, registries and offices for
supporting staff etc. All these affect the efficiency of the Courts and the quality of justice
dispensed.113

The principle of the independence of the judiciary requires that there shall not be any
inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process. However, the Executive
111
“Court Judgements In Nigeria And The Independence Of The Judiciary” in
[Link]
independence-of-the-judiciary Accessed 18th June 2024.
112
Section 121(3) CFRN 1999 (as Amended)
113
Ibid

58
blatant disobedience of court orders and non-compliance with due process of the law poses
another threat to judicial independence. An example is the removal of Justice Walter
Onnoghen as Chief Justice of the Federation by President Buhari in 2019. His removal was
supposedly in compliance with an order issued by a tribunal after hearing his case on alleged
breaches of the Code of Conduct. This happened even after courts with higher jurisdiction
had ordered that the proceeding at the tribunal be halted. The action of the President was a
clear breach of judicial independence as the order to halt proceedings at the Tribunal was
completely disobeyed and due process was not followed for the removal of Justice Walter
Onnoghen.114

Recommendations for the true realization of judicial independence include;

1. The definition section of the Constitution which defines a Judicial Officer should be
expanded to include Magistrates, Area Courts Judges, Sharia Courts and Customary
Court Judges of the various states. They should be treated as judicial officers
especially as far as salaries and tenure of office are concerned. These individuals
serve in the temple of justice and as well dispense justice, thus, there is no basis for
the discrimination in status and welfare.
2. States governments should be made to uphold and comply religiously with the
provisions of section 121(3) of the Constitution 1999 which provides that “any
amount standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the consolidated revenue fund of the
state shall be paid directly to the heads of court concerned.” This will ensure the
availability of funds to the judiciary for the maintenance of the Courts and the
facilities. Any State government which fails to comply with the above provision
should be penalized.
3. The judiciary should be financially autonomous. This means that they should get their
disbursements directly from the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Conclusively, to preserve judicial independence, the Constitution should provide for three
things: first, Security of tenure such that once appointed, a judge is entitled to serve on the
bench until the age of retirement, unless, where an independent tribunal established for
that purpose has ordered that a judge be removed from office upon proof of an allegation
of misconduct against him. Secondly, financial security, such that judges are paid

114
Ibid

59
sufficiently and in a manner that they are not dependent on or subject to pressure from
other institutions. And thirdly, administrative independence, Courts must be able to
decide how to manage the litigation process and the cases judges will hear.

60
CHAPTER FOUR; THE PERSISTENCE OF DELAYED JUDGMENT IN NIGERIA

4.1 INTRODUCTION
It is often said in a popular parlance that justice delayed is justice denied. The persistence of
delayed judgment in Nigeria is a pressing issue that significantly undermines the
effectiveness of its judicial system and the broader rule of law. Timely adjudication of cases
is essential not only for ensuring justice for individuals and businesses but also for upholding
the principles of fairness, accountability, and legal certainty within the society. This chapter
provides an analysis of the enduring prevalence of delayed justice by providing conceptual
clarification exploring its significance, root causes, impacts, and related aspects.

4.2 CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION

The role of the courts in the administration of justice is sacrosanct to the stability of human
society. The judiciary is ideally regarded as the last hope for the oppressed considering the
lofty responsibility of justice dispensation assigned to them by the society. A reputed chief
justice of South Africa once posited that ‘the executive might transgress, the legislature might
become unruly but it has always been the judiciary that has stood the test of time by standing
firm on the side of truth and justice’115

One of the cardinal objectives of the judiciary as the third arm of government is the defence
and upholding of the constitution and assuring that the rule of law prevails at all time 116.
Thus, the work of the judiciary, under this general duty and mandate reflects the level of a
court’s jurisdiction to some extent. Another important element in the role of the judiciary at
every Level is the protection of the citizens, human and constitutional rights and defending
them from Each other’s wrong doing. Thus, the judiciary protects the weak from the strong,
the poor from The rich and the powerless from the powerful. Moreover, the judiciary plays a
significant role of Ensuring order and tranquility by providing an enabling and
institutionalized structure for the resolution of conflict and dispute and the acquittal of civil
and criminal wrongdoing through the courts. The courts, thus, are the frameworks within
which people seek redress and settlement of discords and disputes that cannot be effectively
achieved elsewhere.117

115
Masunda, M.A., ‘The Role the Judiciary Must Play in Society’ in [Link]. Accessed 20th June
2024
116
The rule of law is essential in the creation, preservation and advancement of a civilized society.
117
Ladner, J., ‘Role of the Judiciary’, in [Link]. Accessed 20th June 2024

61
The effectiveness of the courts lies not only in their ability to be fair, firm and ultimately
neutral, but also un their timely dispensation of justice. However, despite these crucial roles
of the judiciary, the judicial process is often painstakingly slow and leaves much to be
desired. This has made many people lose confidence in using the courts as it is mostly
believed that delayed justice is denied justice.

Delay pertains to cases taking an unusually long time to reach a final decision or judgment,
often extending well beyond what is considered reasonable or acceptable. Delays can occur at
any stage of the legal process, including the filing of cases, pre-trial procedures, trial
proceedings, and post-trial appeals. In Justice Akpor & Ors v Ighorigo,118 the Supreme Court
set aside the judgement because there was a delay of two years and nine months between
conclusion of trial and judgement. In Ekiri v Kemiside & Ors,119 the Supreme Court set aside
a judgement which was about 16 months late. In Joseph Ozoma & Ors v M. Osanwuta,120 the
judgement was given 17 years after the institution of the case. The Supreme Court ordered a
retrial. In Agiende Ayambi v The State,121 Olatawura, held that a criminal trial which lasted for
over two years could not be said to have been conducted within a reasonable time.

Justice on the other hand is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated
impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws
are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action
is taken both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by
their actions.

Justice should be inseparable from fairness. Studies report a perception of unfairness in the
court system. Each jurist and the court as a whole must remain vigilant that fairness is the
court’s hallmark and is so perceived by the individuals and the community it serves. To
address this issue the court must reinforce policies and procedures designed to assure equal
treatment of the strong and the weak, powerful and powerless, privileged and disadvantaged,
majority and minority. By example and through education and training, judges must instill in
themselves and court personnel the importance of treating each individual fairly no matter
what their particular circumstances and background or unique characteristics may be. 122

118
2SC,115 (1972),
119
(1976) NWLR145
120
UHC/30/679(1969)
121
(1985) 6NCLR141
122
Ibid 2

62
The persistence of delayed judgment is a cause of concern in the administration of justice in
Nigeria. The timely disposition of cases is a fundamental part of justice. Conversely, unduly
prolonged investigations and trials deny justice. Delays are detrimental to Nigerians seeking
justice and the system of justice as a whole. Delayed justice can jeopardize the peaceful
resolution of cases and can force citizens to seek justice on their own terms, which can lead to
violence. Time is therefore of the essence.123

4.3 CAUSES OF DELAYED JUDGMENT IN NIGERIA

This issue of delayed judgments in Nigeria's judicial system is a significant challenge that
undermines the principles of justice and fairness as such understanding the causes of delayed
judgments is crucial for implementing effective reforms to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of Nigeria's legal system. Several factors contribute to these delays, including
the problem of case flow management, inadequate judicial infrastructure, insufficient
numbers of judges, and procedural complexities. These delays not only affect the timely
resolution of cases but also erode public confidence in the judiciary, hinder economic
development, and exacerbate the suffering of those seeking justice. Understanding

4.3.1 THE PROBLEM OF CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT

Case flow management is the coordination of court processes and resources so that court
cases progress in a timely manner from filing to disposition.

The overall objective of the court is a just and timely determination of every case that comes
before the court. The court’s process should be open, efficient, understandable and accessible.
Case flow management processes are intended to contribute to the achievement of these
objectives and in the process, to make a better day for those who work within the system and
for the public they serve.124

Each judge is tasked with the responsibility of managing the cases assigned to them, with the
objective of preventing congestion in their courtroom. Nonetheless, in jurisdictions where
new cases are frequently filed in rapid succession, it becomes increasingly challenging to

123
Bayo, O., “Delayed Justice For Fulani By Fulani”, in < [Link]
fulani-bayo-oluwasanmi> Accessed 20th June 2024

124
Alabi A.A., Case Flow Management in Lower Courts – Problems and Solutions, (Lagos: My Professional
Publishers; 2004).

63
maintain this objective, and congestion will inevitably build up and become unavoidable
despite the best efforts of the judge.

A recent report has it that the Supreme Court has over 5,000 cases pending in the apex court,
many of them which relate to criminal appeals (some of which were brought to the Court
cases as far as the year 2005)125

Some of the problems bordering on case flow are caused by the judge, one can easily
discover a lazy judge from a hardworking judge. Pending cases can build up not
necessarily because there are too many cases placed before him to handle but because the
judge’s output is low. For instance, some judges make it a policy to fix only one case for a
day, if it is set down for hearing. This is unwise because where an unforeseen impediment
occurs, such as illness of counsel or inability to serve subpoenas; the result is that such a
day is wasted. Some judges, due to pressure from counsel, neglect to endeavor to
hear cases in accordance with their priority in time of filing; the result is that before
they know it, cases that were filed about ten years ago are left pending. Eventually,
the potential witnesses in the case become disenchanted and eventually stop attending
the case, thus frustrating the justiciable decision that their evidence could have helped
the court to achieve in the case.126

In some instances, judges, in their effort to accommodate witnesses who are elderly or from
outside the court’s jurisdiction, schedule multiple such cases on a single day to ensure their
testimonies are not lost. Unfortunately, this often results in spending most of the day on just
one case, leaving insufficient time for others. Consequently, some courts end up with
numerous part-heard matters, while other judges accumulate judgments that are due within
days of each other.127

4.3.2 INADEQUATE COURT FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL

The inadequacy of courts and personnel are also a significant cause of delayed justice by
Nigerian courts. The increase in population in particularly major Nigerian cities and the
growing suburbs and shanty towns has not been met with a corresponding increase in the
number of courts and their facilities. For effective dispensation of justice, court facilities

125
Mohammed I. S., Mohammed F. B. O., Nazariah B. O., “Nigerian Justice System: The Ideal, Hope And
Reality” in <[Link] Accessed 20th June 2024.
126
Agbonika J., Alewo M., “Delay in the Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria: Issues from a Nigerian
Viewpoint” in < [Link] Accessed 20th June 2024.
127
Ibid

64
including courtrooms, offices, judges/magistrate chambers, toilets, libraries, electricity, etc,
are necessities.

Except for Lagos State and the Federal Capital Territory which boast of some good court
facilities, the few good court facilities in other states, are mostly located at the capitals. Most
courtrooms lack basic amenities such as tables, chairs, electricity, air conditioners, toilets,
and waiting rooms. Aside from the Federal High Courtrooms, the National Industrial
Courtrooms, and the Court of Appeal most courts in some states lack an efficient power
supply.

In Ondo State court buildings in Akure, the state capital, and other parts of the state are in
terrible conditions. some Magistrates courts in Akure were displaced and had to find
alternative sitting venues as the complex housing the magistrates’ courts were demolished
under the guise of building an ultra-modern court complex by the present administration in
the state. The foundation of the proposed complex has not been laid up till now. 128

In Ekiti State, courtrooms in six out of the 10 judicial divisions namely Omuo, Ikole, Efon,
Emure, Ilawe and Ido Ekiti divisions are at various stages of dilapidation, while 20 out of the
29 customary courts in the state are yearning for renovation. 129 In Ado-Ekiti premises,
virtually all the courts suffer epileptic power supply and do not have provision for restrooms.
In Ikere-Ekiti, the second largest town in the State, the only court facility in the town had
been untaken by rodents and weeds until earlier 2023 when an individual single-handedly
built a new High Court and donated it to the State Judiciary.130

Not failing to discus the courts in Edo state. In Benin city, The state High Court complex
located along Sapele Road, State Customary Court of Appeal now housing the Benin
Division of the Court of Appeal along Aguobansinmwin and the National Industrial Court
along Okada Avenue are all fitted with state-of-the-art facilities including air-conditioners,
public address system etc. But the picture is not the same once you travel outside the state
capital as most of the courts are still what was inherited from the colonial government. In
Auchi, the Magistrate Court in the town was recently reconstructed after years of neglect. The
High Court in the town looks good on the outside but the inside is a stack difference. When it
rains, proceedings cannot go on due to leaking roofs. The chairs and tables in the court are
128
Ojelu H., “Slow Justice: How infrastructure decay hampers judicial system” in <
[Link]
hampers-judicial-system/amp/> Accessed 20th June 2024.
129
Ibid
130
Ibid

65
old and damaged.131 In Igarra, headquarter of Akoko-Edo local government area, the 30-year-
old Customary Court is weather-beaten. The Magistrate Court in the town is also in bad
shape. The High Court is also in bad shape.132

According to a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mariam Mukhtar, “the poor
Institutional and infrastructural facilities associated with the nation’s justice system are
responsible for the slow administration of justice in the country”. 133 From an institutional
perspective, there is a significant shortage of qualified personnel, including translators,
interpreters, and research assistants, who are essential for the effective functioning of the
courts. This deficit hampers the judicial process, making it difficult to handle cases
efficiently.134

4.3.3 DELAY TACTICS

Many factors are responsible for the delay experienced in the smooth, efficient and quick
disposal of cases. The easiest way to ensure that cases take as long as possible to conclude is
for Counsel to adopt different delay tactics. The most common delay tactic is the raising of
preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court or on mere irregularity, or
on the validity of a charge itself based on some perceived defects (sometimes imaginary and
illusory).135 In the case of preliminary objections, the trial court is obligated to deliver its
ruling on the objection one way or the other. Where the preliminary objection fails, another
tactic which is sometimes executed with the intention to further delay proceedings is to
appeal the decision of the ruling of the trial court at the Appellate Court termed interlocutory
appeals. When interlocutory appeals are executed tactfully, it could end up stalling any real
progress in the matter for a number of years particularly where stay of proceedings at the trial
court is granted. It is therefore advocated that in order to avoid mischievous use of the court
process to frustrate proceedings, the Court considers each application before it on its merits

131
Ibid
132
Ibid
133
Anon A., ‘Nigeria’s Chief Justice Blames Slow Administration of Justice on poor Infrastructure’ in
[Link] Accessed 20th 2024.
134
Oba A. A., Ismeal I. S., “Revisiting The Causes of Delay in The Adjudication of Islamic
Personal Law Cases in Nigerian Jurisprudence” in [Link]
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=[Link]
[Link]&ved=2ahUKEwjZ5YzAtPeGAxX8WEEAHZ7FAzYQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3iovr-
C5TnShROKqxoEV3Q Accessed 20th June 2024
135
Olayinka Aileru, ‘Preventing Delay Tactics In Criminal Trials In Nigeria’ (Punch Newspapers, 2020)
<[Link] accessed 1 August 2020

66
and exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously by striking out/dismissing applications
which do not aid substantial justice.136

4.3.4 POOR REMUNERATION AND WELFARE OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, has said Nigerians will continue to
suffer from the nation’s judiciary system until salaries, allowances and official benefits of
judges are increased. He pointed out that the last time their salaries were increased was 17
years ago despite the depreciation in the value of the currency, causing them to live under
harsh economic conditions.137

The judiciary is the third branch of government. However, when comparing the salaries of the
Executive branch, including the President and National Assembly members, with those of the
judiciary, a significant disparity becomes evident. This disparity is most pronounced at the
grassroots level, among Magistrates. They are often reliant on state Ministries of Justice and
receive inadequate compensation. Observing their pay would evoke sympathy, considering
they play a crucial role in dispensing civil and criminal justice. It is essential to provide better
support and encouragement to these key judicial officers.

4.3.5 DELAYS IN SECURING THE ATTENDANCE OF KEY WITNESSES CAN

POSTPONE HEARINGS
A significant cause of delays in the criminal justice process is non-attendance of witnesses at
court. Witnesses include ordinary citizens and ‘specialist’ witnesses such as Investigating
Police Officers (IPOs) and expert witnesses e.g. medical doctors, coroners, etc. 138 Whenever
parties fail to bring their witnesses to court, the judge is forced to adjourn. Unfortunately,
because the judges usually have long lists of cases, a missed hearing day means the case will

136
Monye J., Obiagbaoso P., Obidegwu R.. “Where are we in Curbing Delays in Administration of Justice in
Nigeria?” in [Link]
Accessed 21st June 2024.
137
Isuwa S. “Chief Justice Warns Over Poor Salary For Judges” in <[Link]
over-poor-salary-for-judges/> Accessed 21st June 2024.
138
“Improving The Attendance Rate of Witnesses in Criminal Cases” in [Link]
attendance-rate-of-witnesses-in-criminal-cases/ Accessed 21st June 2024

67
be adjourned for between weeks and months. Sometimes witnesses give wrong addresses or
may change addresses without any notice, making it difficult or impossible for summons to
be served. Even where the summons is served, the average Nigerian is unwilling to be
involved in the criminal process. It is common knowledge that once an offence is committed,
most people prefer to keep aloof and deny that they ever witnessed the incident. 139

4.3.6 PLOYS OF LAWYERS

The ethics of the profession enjoins lawyers to assist the court in the attainment of efficient
and quick justice. In most instances, the rules are observed in the breach. Lawyers who
perceive they have a weak case often resort to unethical tactics rather than providing proper
advice to their clients. These tactics include requesting unnecessary adjournments to delay
proceedings and buying time. The challenging economic environment has only exacerbated
this issue, contributing to a decline in professional standards. As a result, touting and outright
chicanery have become increasingly common. This misconduct is now a prevalent feature of
legal practice for many lawyers in courts, undermining the integrity of the judicial process
and the delivery of justice. The prevalence of such unethical behavior highlights the need for
stricter oversight and enforcement of professional ethics to restore faith in the legal system
and ensure that justice is served timely and efficiently.140

4.4 IMPLICATIONS OF DELAYED JUSTICE IN NIGERIA

Since the judicial system is bogged down by delay and inefficiency, it has over time lost
credibility resulting in fewer and fewer people willing to approach the courts for dispute
resolution, as they seek alternatives which often does not augur well for the society as no one
ordinarily looks up to a system where the court holds up their cases endlessly for upward 10
to 12 years sometimes at the court of first instance.

139
Chinyere A. C., “Towards Eradicating The Problem of Delay in Criminal Justice Administration In
Nigeria” in [Link]
delay-in-criminal-justice-administration-in-nigeria/amp/ Accessed 21st June 2024
140
Yusuf A. O., “Avoiding Trial Delays in Civil Proceedings” in [Link]
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=[Link]
avoiding_trial_delys_in_civil_proceeding.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjFycHv_vmGAxVzT0EAHQj1D60QFnoEC
BIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw30Kzk_McT9-YGc3ERJF1Ap Accessed 21st June 2024

68
Many a times in Nigeria, by the time the court determines a suit, the litigants have lost
interest in the outcome of the case as they are given judgment without justice. Repeated
experiences of delayed justice can lead the public to view the legal system as ineffective,
unresponsive, and disconnected from their everyday concerns. This can foster a general
disrespect for the law and a willingness to circumvent it, Some examples of cases which took
excessively long timed in court can be seen in Union Bank Nigeria Plc v Ayodara Sons (Nig)
limited141 which was instituted in 1989 but was not finally disposed by the Supreme Court
until 2007– a period of 18 years. Adisa v Oyinwola142 is another one. Here, the appeal was not
determined by the Supreme Court until 2000. In this case, the appeal lasted for 15 years from
the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court!² The delay inherent in the Nigerian judicial
system can easily be attributed to failings which the judiciary can easily tackle.

Delay in the administration of justice in Nigeria has far reaching implications. One of the
most Glaring consequences of this is the rising number of ATPs in the already crowded
Nigerian Prisons. The total number of Prisoners in Nigerian Prisons in 1985 Was 53,786 out
of which 21,515 were ATPs. The figure by 1990 jumped to 55,331 inmates and 27,665 being
ATPs. However, by 2014, the situation became worse than the previous years as Only 17,775
inmates were convicted out of the 56,785 total of inmates in the Nigerian prisons. The
remaining 39,010 were all ATPs. 143 In December 2017 ATPs constituted about 66 percent of
the prison population with the total number of Prisoners being 72,384 and 48,527 of the
figure being awaiting trial inmates. 144 As of 18th December 2023, no fewer than 53,836
inmates in the 253 correctional centres nationwide are awaiting trial. 145 This contribute to
over crowding of prisons and can lead to human rights abuses and strain on the correctional
system.

141
(2007) 13 NWLR (pt.1052) 567
142
(2000) 10 NWLR (Pt 674) 116
143
Aruba M. R., “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: An Empirical Study of Causes and Implications of Delayed
Justice by the Nigerian Courts” in [Link]
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=[Link]
Justice-by-Nigerian-Courts_tbl3_334443381&ved=2ahUKEwi_27-
nnvqGAxUPUkEAHWNXBlUQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1HgZ0qhTx-LGyX29jl62sN Accessed 21st June 2024.
144
“66% of Nigerian prisons inmates are awaiting trial” in [Link]
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=[Link]
[Link]%23:~:text%3DThe%2520Nigerian
%2520Prison%2520Service%252C%2520NPS,Network%2520(PERMNET)%2520in
%2520Lagos.&ved=2ahUKEwiji-
PGofqGAxVCV0EAHbCPA54QFnoECA4QBQ&usg=AOvVaw1zn5GL2jeLD3CytySagD5Q Accessed 21st
June 2024

69
When the legal system/structure in a country fails to provide justice in a timely manner, the
implication could be such that it leads to frustration, and escalates injustice. 146 Perpetrators of
crimes may feel emboldened if they perceive that the legal system is incapable of prosecuting
and punishing them in a timely manner. This sense of impunity can lead to a rise in criminal
activities, as offenders believe they can evade justice or exploit the delays to their advantage.
Consequently, crime rates can escalate, affecting the overall safety and security of society.
When there are significant delays between a crime being committed and the final resolution
of a case, the deterrent effect of the justice system is diminished.

Another Implication of undue delay is that it is in itself a violation of the Section 36 147 which
provides that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time”. This
provision applies to both civil and criminal trials, as well as certain disciplinary and
administrative proceedings. Certain cases require special diligence from the authorities due to
their nature. These “priority” cases include situations where one of the parties is ill, or where
the issue involves employment disputes, child-care matters, or claims for compensation
resulting from medical malpractice. In such instances, it is especially crucial to ensure a swift
resolution.148

A crucial implication of excessive delays in the administration of justice is that it constitute

an important danger, in particular for the rule of law. Inordinately long court proceedings
tend to undermine the credibility in the justice system as a whole. The general public needs to
149
feel confident that the State is able to dispense justice in a timely fashion. When justice is
delayed, it erodes this confidence, leading to skepticism and distrust. People begin to doubt
whether the legal system can protect their rights and deliver fair outcomes, which weakens

145
“69% of Nigeria’s prison inmates awaiting trial – Official” in [Link]
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=[Link]
[Link]&ved=2ahUKEwiji-
PGofqGAxVCV0EAHbCPA54QFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dzDDquo5ganqijZKAyCrA Accessed 21st June 2024
146
Obiotika W. T. “Delayed justice: Implications for Nigerian masses” in
[Link] Accessed 21st June
2024.

147
1999 CFRN (as amended)
148
“Long Delays in Court Proceedings Threaten The Rule Of Law” in
[Link]
delays-in-court-proceedings-threaten-the-rule-of-law Accessed 21st June 2024.
149
Ibid

70
the overall respect for the law. Delay portrays justice as illusory and citizens may be tempted
to take matters into their own hands. This is potentially dangerous.150

The rule of law requires that all Individuals and institutions, including the government, are
accountable under the law. Delayed justice can lead to a lack of accountability, as prolonged
legal processes can obscure the connection between actions and consequences. The
implication of this is that this delay makes it difficult to hold wrongdoers accountable in a
timely manner, thereby weakening the deterrent effect of legal sanctions.

Another Implication of delayed judgment on the rule of law is that A key component of the rule
of law is the authority and independence of the judiciary. Persistent delays in justice delivery can
undermine the authority of the judiciary, as courts may be seen as ineffective or powerless. This
perception weakens the judiciary's role as an impartial arbiter and enforcer of laws.

Legal certainty requires that matters of dispute are resolved and peaceful coexistence is
restored. Court users should be able to foresee when a court proceeding is likely end. Lack of
predictability creates frustration and an unfortunate feeling of powerlessness. Excessive
delays may also have very concrete negative implications for the parties to the proceedings,

- As time passes, evidence disappears and new evidence has to be adduced. This may
cause practical as well as financial difficulties;
- Witnesses may forget the events at issue, lose credibility or move on;
- Court costs increase.151

These can allow those accused of wrongdoing to evade accountability and aid powerful
individuals or entities to influence the outcome of justice.

Another Implication of a delayed judgment may be that it’s effective execution or

enforcement becomes impossible. The defendant may have become insolvent or have spirited
away his assets so that they are beyond the reach of the successful claimant. Even a freezing
injunction is of no use if it is granted after the defendant has removed his money from the
jurisdiction. Bentham’s other examples are perhaps less stark. He pointed out that delay could
lead to the destruction of evidence and the fading of memories. It not only tended to reduce,
if not altogether eliminate, the practical value of a judgment, but it also reduced the
likelihood that the judge would reach the right decision.152

150
Ibid
151
Ibid

71
Complexity, excessive cost and delay undermine the individual litigant’s interest in having
effective access to justice or impair the ability of litigants to use the justice system
effectively. In extreme cases, they may lead to a denial of justice altogether. They are also
damaging to the wider public interest. Complexity breeds both unnecessary expense and
delay. Delay in turn leads to complexity. There are many examples of this, such as
applications to strike out claims for want of prosecution, applications for extensions of time,
and applications for relief from sanction. Over the years, a large body of case law has been
built up in which the courts have developed the principles by which applications of this kind
are determined. They are not clear-cut and have proved to be a fruitful source of litigation.
Complex procedural battles of this kind are a delight to the lawyers, but they add to the delay
and cost of litigation. On that account they cause dismay to litigants and do not serve the
interests of justice.153 It is of no news that any fair and efficient justice system should be managed
for the benefit of all litigants.

Delays in resolving commercial disputes in Nigeria can have serious consequences for businesses and
the overall investment climate. For example, a foreign company enters into a contract with a
Nigerian firm to supply goods worth millions of dollars. A dispute arises over the terms of payment,
and the foreign company initiates legal proceedings in a Nigerian court. 154 However, due to the
backlog of cases and inefficient judicial processes, the case drags on for several years without a
resolution. During this time, the foreign company is unable to recover its funds or enforce the
contract terms. This delay severely impacts the company’s cash flow and ability to conduct
business.155 Moreover, the prolonged legal battle incurs significant legal costs for both parties,
further straining their resources. The uncertainty and lack of timely justice also discourage the
foreign company from making future investments in Nigeria, as it loses confidence in the country’s
legal system 156

An example of delays in resolving commercial disputes in Nigeria can be seen in the case of
MTN Nigeria, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the country. In 2015, the

152
“Delay Too Often Defeats Justice” in
[Link] Accessed
22nd June 2024.
153
Ibid
154
“Overview Of Commercial Litigation In Nigeria” in [Link]
commercial-law/1029300/overview-of-commercial-litigation-in-nigeria Accessed 23rd 2024.
155
“An interview with Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie discussing dispute resolution in Nigeria” in
[Link] Accessed 23rd
2024.
156
“Commercial Litigation and ADR Mechanisms in Nigeria” in [Link]
litigation-and-adr-mechanisms-in-nigeria/ Accessed 23rd 2024.

72
Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) fined MTN $5.2 billion for failing to
disconnect improperly registered SIM cards.157 MTN contested the fine, leading to a
protracted legal and regulatory battle. The dispute, which involved multiple negotiations and
court cases, created significant uncertainty for MTN’s operations in Nigeria. It affected the
company’s stock prices, disrupted its business planning, and led to considerable legal costs.
Additionally, the prolonged dispute raised concerns among other foreign investors about the
regulatory environment and the efficiency of the legal system in Nigeria.158

Overall, delayed justice can have profound and detrimental effects on economic
development, social cohesion, legal integrity, political stability, and human rights.
Addressing these delays requires comprehensive reforms to enhance the efficiency,
transparency, and accessibility of the judicial system

157
“MTN Nigeria fined N1.04 trillion by the NCC” in [Link]
fined-n1-04-trillion-ncc/ Accessed 23rd June 2024.
158
Ibid

73
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

It is widely acknowledged that the Nigerian judiciary plays a pivotal role in the country's
governance and legal system by ensuring justice, interpreting laws, and resolving disputes.
Nevertheless, it confronts substantial challenges that diminish its efficiency and erode public
trust. Over the years, many constraints have steadily crept into the legal and judicial systems
in Nigeria. Nigeria is at present faced by a critical failure of justice. Criminal and civil justice
administration has all but collapsed. Confidence in the judicial system has eroded to
dangerous levels. The rationale for justice administration and the rule of law is the
desirability and necessity of resolving conflicts within, and not outside, the legal and judicial
system and framework. In the absence of a properly functioning legal and judicial system,
force rather than law would rule and anarchy would result.

In the course of this study, it provided a detailed examination of the structure of the Nigerian
judiciary, delineating it into two distinct branches: The Federal Courts (Supreme Court, Court
of Appeal, Federal High Court and High Court of The Federal Capital Territory Abuja) and
the State Courts (High Courts, Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary Court of Appeal
Magistrate, Customary, and other specialized courts at the local level). It further underscores
the critical role played by constitutional safeguards in ensuring the judiciary's independence.
These safeguards include; Financial autonomy, ensuring that the judiciary is not unduly
influenced by fiscal constraints and can operate independently in its financial decisions and
management. Appointment and removal of judges, highlighting the stringent procedures
designed to insulate judicial officers from arbitrary interference. Lastly, judicial tenure, this
prescribes fixed tenures for judges, thereby shielding them from external pressures that might
compromise their impartiality or tenure security. However, it is important to note that these
safeguards are not without their loopholes. Summarily, by analyzing these provisions
comprehensively, the chapter underscores the critical importance of a robust legal and
judicial framework in upholding the rule of law and ensuring the effective administration of
justice in Nigeria.

The study further extensively explores the foundational premise of the project by delving
deeply into the multifaceted nature and the complex interplay among the factors contributing

74
to delayed judgments within the Nigerian judiciary. By shedding light on the intricate
dynamics at play, the study aims to offer an understanding of why delays occur and how they
impact the judicial system and society at large. Furthermore, the study goes beyond mere
identification of causes to elucidate the serious implications that delayed judgments pose. It
examines how prolonged legal processes can lead to diminished public trust in the judiciary,
increased costs for litigants, and a backlog that undermines the timely administration of
justice. Moreover, the study highlights the broader societal consequences, such as hindering
economic development, perpetuating inequality, and potentially fostering a culture of
impunity. Through this comprehensive exploration, this study underscores the critical
importance of addressing delays in judgment as a pivotal step towards enhancing the
efficiency, fairness, and credibility of the Nigerian judicial system. By unpacking these issues
in detail, the study that the effectiveness of the courts lies not only in their ability to be fair,
firm and ultimately neutral, but also for the justice to be dispensed timely.

5.2 OBSERVATION
Based on the discussions in the preceding chapters of this work, the following observation
becomes evident:

1. Prolonged court processes and backlog of cases not only impede timely resolution of
disputes but also stain judicial resources which is essential for the judiciary. When
cases take longer than necessary to resolve, it ties up courtrooms, judges, and legal
staff. This backlog slows down the entire judicial process. When these resources are
consumed by handling a backlog of cases or by lengthy proceedings, it reduces their
productivity.

2. Delay breeds delay. This refers to the compounding effect that delays in the judicial
system can have on subsequent cases and overall efficiency. When cases experience
delays, they contribute to the backlog of pending cases within the judicial system. As
more cases accumulate, the workload for judges, court staff, and resources increases.
This backlog can become overwhelming, making it difficult for the judiciary to catch
up and address cases in a timely manner. Also delays in resolving cases tie up judicial
resources that could otherwise be used to handle new cases efficiently. Courtrooms

75
 may remain occupied for extended periods with ongoing cases, leaving fewer
available slots for new hearings or trials. This allocation imbalance further
exacerbates delays for both pending and incoming cases.

3. The effect of delayed justice not only affect the reputation of the judiciary as the last
hope of the common man but also on the rule of law. The rule of law requires that
legal principles are applied consistently and predictably. Delayed justice introduces
uncertainty into the legal system, as parties may experience prolonged periods of legal
limbo awaiting court decisions. This uncertainty can undermine the rule of law by
weakening adherence to legal norms and fostering a perception that outcomes are
arbitrary rather than based on established legal principles. It also weakens the
foundation of the rule of law as the erratic access to justice undermine the principle
that all individuals should have equal protection under the law.

4. The problem of delayed judgment in legal systems, often stems not from inherent
faults in the laws themselves but rather from how these laws are exploited or
manipulated during legal proceedings. Legal practitioners may exploit procedural
rules and loopholes to delay or prolong legal proceedings. This can include filing
numerous motions, requests for adjournments, or procedural challenges aimed at
stalling the progress of a case. Such tactics are sometimes used strategically to gain
tactical advantages or to create opportunities for negotiation outside the courtroom. In
complex cases, parties may employ sophisticated litigation strategies that involve
extensive document discovery, expert testimony, or appeals. While these elements are
necessary for thorough adjudication, they can also contribute to prolonged legal
processes if not managed efficiently.

5. The issue of delayed justice often does not receive as much attention in scholarly
discourse on judiciary problems compared to the issue of judicial independence.
While judicial independence is crucial for ensuring impartiality and fairness in legal
decisions, the problem of delayed justice deserves equal recognition and importance
due to its significant impact on the effectiveness and credibility of the judicial system.

76
5.3 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
This research has contributed to knowledge in the following areas;

1. This work has added to the existing literature on the phenomenon of delayed court
judgment and the causes and implications on the Nigeria justice system
2. This study can identify gaps in the existing literature and suggest avenues for future
research. This can encourage further exploration into specific aspects of delayed court
judgments, comparative studies across different legal systems, or evaluations of the
long-term effects of judicial reforms aimed at reducing delays
3. Through empirical research methods, such as case studies, surveys, or data analysis,
this study provides empirical evidence to support theoretical insights.

5.4 RECOMMENDATION
Addressing the causes of delayed court judgments in Nigeria requires a multifaceted
approach that addresses both systemic issues and procedural challenges. Here are several
recommendations:

1. To enhance the efficiency of court proceedings and minimize opportunities for delays,
it is crucial to streamline court procedures. This includes establishing precise
timelines for managing cases, adhering to filing before deadlines, and scheduling
hearings promptly to ensure that legal matters progress swiftly and smoothly.

2. More efforts should be made by the government to encourage the adoption of

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods such as mediation and arbitration to
settle disputes outside the traditional court system. This approach helps alleviate the
caseload on courts and accelerates the resolution process for specific types of cases.
3. Increase the recruitment and appointment of judges and magistrates to decrease the
workload per judicial officer. This effort should be accompanied by comprehensive
training and support programs to bolster judicial effectiveness. Additionally, enhance
courtroom management practices to maximize the utilization of existing judicial
resources and mitigate scheduling conflicts.

77
4. There is a need to prioritize investments in modern court facilities, which should
include sufficient courtroom space, secure case management systems, and digital
recording equipment. These enhancements can significantly improve the efficiency of
handling documents, presenting evidence, and tracking cases. Furthermore, expanding
the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) within court
operations, such as adopting e-filing systems, electronic case management, and virtual
court proceedings, is crucial. ICT advancements facilitate quicker communication,
minimize paperwork, and accelerate the judicial decision-making process.

5. There should be a regular review on current laws and procedural regulations to

pinpoint outdated provisions or legal uncertainties that contribute to delays. For
instance, current laws and procedural regulations concerning the admissibility of
evidence sometimes cause delays in court judgments. As such, establishing a review
committee to assess the admissibility of evidence before it is presented in court could
help mitigate such delays.

6. Ensure sufficient financial resources are allocated to the judiciary to cover operational
expenses such as salaries, training programs, maintenance of court infrastructure, and
upgrades to technology. Consider collaborating with private sector entities or non-
governmental organizations to secure additional funding for judicial reforms and
infrastructure development initiatives. An example is the Nigerian philanthropist,
Chief Oluwole Oladapo Olanipekun (SAN) who commissioned a new courthouse in
in Ikere-Ekiti in Ekiti State, on 19 January 2023.

7. There is also the need to increase public awareness and knowledge of legal rights,
court procedures, and options for resolving disputes. Equip citizens to interact
effectively with the legal system and advocate for prompt resolution of their cases.
Foster transparency in judicial proceedings and decision-making to bolster public trust
in the judiciary's capacity to administer justice equitably and impartially.

78
5.5 CONCLUSION
This study has shown that delayed court judgment is a critical issue that warrants thorough
examination due to its profound impact on justice delivery and societal trust in legal systems.
it can therefore be concluded that the adage "justice delayed is justice denied" encapsulates a
fundamental truth about the impact of delays in legal proceedings. Throughout history and
across jurisdictions, delays in the adjudication of legal disputes have consistently undermined
the foundational principles of fairness, equity, and access to justice.

The causes identified by this research encompass a range of factors, including complex
procedural rules that hinder efficient case management, inadequate judicial resources and
infrastructure, and legal frameworks that require modernization to accommodate evolving
societal needs. These factors collectively contribute to prolonged litigation periods,
exacerbating backlog and undermining the timely resolution of legal disputes. The effects of
delayed court judgments are profound and wide-ranging. They encompass heightened costs
for parties involved, increased stress and uncertainty, prolonged disputes that strain personal
and business relationships, and potential economic repercussions due to delayed contract
enforcement and investment decisions. Delayed justice also undermines public confidence in
the judiciary's ability to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously, thereby eroding the rule of
law and societal cohesion.

This study further showed that addressing the issue of delayed court judgment requires a
holistic approach. This includes implementing reforms to streamline procedural rules,
enhance judicial efficiency through better case management and technological integration,
allocate sufficient resources for judicial training and infrastructure development, and promote
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to alleviate court backlog. Furthermore, fostering
transparency, accountability, and public awareness of legal rights and responsibilities are
crucial steps towards restoring trust in the judicial process.

79
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ade A., “Judiciary still in search of solution to delayed justice” in

<[Link]
Accessed 30th March 2024.

Agbonika J. A. M. “Delay in the Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria: Issues

from a Nigerian Viewpoint” in [Link]
Accessed 17th may 2024

Aruba M. R., “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: An Empirical Study of Causes and
Implications of Delayed Justice by the Nigerian Courts” in
[Link]
[Link]/figure/Implications-of-Delayed-Justice-by-Nigerian-
Courts_tbl3_334443381&ved=2ahUKEwi_27-
nnvqGAxUPUkEAHWNXBlUQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1HgZ0qhTx-
LGyX29jl62sN Accessed 21st June 2024.

Atoyebi O. M., “ Adjudication Timeframe in Nigeria’s Criminal Jurisprudence: The

Bill That Should Have Passed” in [Link] [Link] Accessed 13st February
2024

Ayodeji A., “Comparative Overview of Filing Procedures, General Defaults and

Payment of Default Fees in the High Court of Lagos State {Civil Procedure} Rules,
2019” in [Link]
procedures-general-defaults-and-payment-of-default-fees-in-the-high-court-of-lagos-
state-civil-procedure-rules-2019/ Accessed 19th May 2024.

Babatunde A. A. O., “The National Industrial Court of Nigeria: Past, Present and
Future” in [Link] Accessed 17th June
2024.

80
Britannica Dictionary” in [Link] Accessed 17th
May 2024

Bryan A. G. (ed), Blacks Laws Dictionary, 11th ed, (West Publishing Co; 2019)

Carrigan J.R., “Inherent Powers of The Courts”, in [Link]

library/abstracts/inherent-powers-courts Accessed 28th April 2024.

Duru O. W. C., “The Role and Historical Development of The Judiciary in Nigeria” in
[Link] Accessed 16th June
2024

Ishmael G., “The Executive and Independence of the Judiciary in Nigeria”, Journal of
Art, Humanity & Social Studies, (2022), Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 57-66
Isuwa S. “Chief Justice Warns Over Poor Salary For Judges” in
<[Link] Accessed 21st
June 2024.

Jahan A., “Justice delayed is Justice denied & Justice hurried is Justice buried:
Reformation of Justice sys to meet the ends of justice without delay & haste” in
[Link]
system-jahan-ara/ Accessed 18th May 2024.

Joan M., Patience O. and Richard O., “Where are we in Curbing Delays in
Administration of Justice in Nigeria?” in [Link]
curbing-delays-in-administration-of-justice-in-nigeria/ Accessed 29th January 2024.

Kaplan, R.S “Advanced management Accounting”, (Prentice-Hall International

inc :1989)

Krasteva I. “What Are Bottlenecks? A Guide to Fixing Business Processes” in

[Link]
%20simplest%20definition%2C%20a,delays%20across%20the%20production
%20process. Accessed may 26th 2024

81
Lateef M.A., “Jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria” in
<[Link]
TS_IN_NIGERIA> Accessed 28th April 2024

Leke K., “Achieving Judicial Independence in Nigeria” in

[Link]
Accessed 18th June.

Mashe U. G., “71% of Nigerians lack trust in the judiciary -Survey” in <
[Link]
2/> Accessed 12th February 2024.

Mohammed I. S., Mohammed F. B. O., Nazariah B. O., “Nigerian Justice System:

The Ideal, Hope And Reality” in
<[Link] Accessed 20th June 2024.

Monye J, Obiagbaoso P. Obidegwu R. “Where are we in Curbing Delays in

Administration of Justice in Nigeria?” in [Link]
curbing-delays-in-administration-of-justice-in-nigeria/ Accessed 26th May 2024
Oba A. A., Ismeal I. S., “Revisiting The Causes of Delay in The Adjudication of
Islamic

Odeniyi S., “Appeal Court Seeks Urgent Action on Backlog of Cases” in <
[Link]
Accessed 1st March 2024

Olanrewaju O., “Hierarchy of Courts”, in < [Link]

courts/> Accessed 28th March 2024

Olayinka Aileru, ‘Preventing Delay Tactics In Criminal Trials In Nigeria’ (Punch

Newspapers, 2020) <[Link]
in-nigeria/> accessed 1 August 2020

82
Olusegun O., “Address at the All Nigerian Judges Conference 2003” in All Nigerian
Judges Conference 2003 (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd., 2005) xxix-xxx

Ononye I.F., Oguekwe U. D. and Oguekwe A. U., “Independence of The Judiciary:

The Nigerian Experience” in [Link]
Accessed 18th June
onye J., Obiagbaoso P., Obidegwu R.. “Where are we in Curbing Delays in
Administration of Justice in Nigeria?” in [Link]
curbing-delays-in-administration-of-justice-in-nigeria/ Accessed 21st June 2024.

Personal Law Cases in Nigerian Jurisprudence” in [Link]

sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=[Link]
[Link]&ved=2ahUKEwjZ5YzAtPeGAxX8WEEAHZ7FAzYQFnoECBsQA
Q&usg=AOvVaw3iovr-C5TnShROKqxoEV3Q Accessed 20th June 2024

Pokol B., “Forms of Judicial Power”, in

<[Link]
2010-4-pokol-forms_of_judicial_power.pdf?sequence=1> Accessed 28th March 2024
Samba, J. N., Fundamental Concepts of Jurisprudence. (Bookmakers Publishing Co;
2003)

Shima, V.A. and Aboho B., “Trial Within a Reasonable Time Under Nigerian Law:
A Legal Myth or Reality?” in <
[Link]

Sokefun J., Nduka C. N., “The Court System in Nigeria: Jurisdiction and Appeals” in
[Link] Accessed on 16th June, 2024
Tobi, N., “Law, Judiciary and Nigerian Democracy” in Ayua, I. A. (ed.) Law Justice
and the Nigerian Society – Essays in Honour of Hon Justice Mohammed Bellow,
(Lagos: Nigerian Institute of Advance Legal Studies; 1995), 135-136

Udora O., “Nigeria: Bill Seeking Timeline for Civil, Criminal Cases Passes for
Second Reading” in [Link] Accessed 12th
February, 2024.

83
 Umana v., “Judicial Precedent and Hierarchy of Courts in Nigeria” in
<[Link] Accessed 28th April
2024.

Veltman, M. “Bottleneck Accounting”, (Maandblad voor Accountancy enbedrijfs

economic; 2011.)

Yusuf A., “The Evolution Of Ideal Nigerian Judiciary In The New Millennium” in
[Link]
RY_IN_THE_NEW_MILLENNIUM.pdf Accessed 16th June 2024

Yusuf O. A., “Delay in the administration of Justice at the magistrate court- factors
responsible and solutions” in
[Link] Accessed
28th January 2024.

Yusuf O.A., “Delay In The Administration Of Justice At The Magistrate Court-

Factors Responsible And Solution” in
[Link] Accessed 17th
May 2024
“An interview with Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie discussing dispute resolution in
Nigeria” in [Link]
a307-f2aa5658aca1 Accessed 23rd 2024.

“Commercial Litigation and ADR Mechanisms in Nigeria” in

[Link]
Accessed 23rd 2024.

“History of the Nigerian Legal System” in

[Link] Accessed on 16th june
2024.
“How to be a Judge in Nigeria” in [Link]
Accessed 17th June 2024.

84
“Justice Delayed is Justice Denied Vs. Justice Hurried is Justice Buried” in
<[Link]
justice-buried/> Accessed 18th May 2024
“Major Bottlenecks In Procedural Laws Affecting Expeditious Conclusion Of
Criminal Trials And Measures Needed To Remove Such Bottlenecks” in
[Link]
Accessed 18th May 2024

“The Fundamental Stages of Trial in A Criminal Litigation (Pre-Trial, Trial And Post
Trial)” in < [Link]
litigation-/> Accessed 28th April 2024.

“The Judiciary“, in <[Link]

Accessed 27th March 28, 2024

“The Judiciary”, in
[Link] Accessed 28th
April 2024.

85