IBRAHIM LAWAL

  • EMEKA NWADIOKE
  • Feb 05, 2022
  • 982
  • 0
  • Comments Off on OYO STATE COURTS: THE TASK BEFORE MAKINDE

OYO STATE COURTS: THE TASK BEFORE MAKINDE

In this article, MR. IBRAHIM LAWAL, Head of Chamber, Olujinmi & Akeredolu, decries the squalid state of infrastructure at the Oyo State High Court of Justice, Ring Road, Ibadan and urges Governor Seyi Makinde to replicate the revamp of his private residence around Kolapo Isola Estate with the court premises

The Oyo State High Court of Justice, Ring Road, Ibadan, is the seat of the judiciary, the third arm of government. Apart from the fact that it hosts more than fifteen Court Rooms, the office of the Chief Judge of the State is there. The Judicial Service Commission, a body saddled with the responsibility of taking care of the appointment and welfare of judicial officers, has its office within the premises. It also houses the Probate Registry as well as the Court Registry.

This complex, arising from its centrality to the filing of judicial processes and the nature of the services it renders to the members of the public, attracts a constant stream of vehicular and human traffic. It is patently unjust for the Government to leave the whole complex in its present squalid circumstances. It has become urgent for the managers of administrative affairs in the State to address this deplorable situation.

A new visitor to the Court premises may be compelled to believe that all is well, especially when he/she does not have any reason to move beyond the first Car Park. Any venture into the so called extension, the second car park, reveals putrescence. Nobody with a modicum of self-respect will attempt a revisit after the first experience. Cars, drivers, litigants and lawyers bear the unmistakable imprimatur of pervasive decadence, occasioned by perennial neglect. Construction site workers have better tales to tell. Visitors to the premises are most reluctant to repeat the unpleasant duty, if they are obliged to do so. Lawyers and litigants have sorry tales of embarrassing moments during their visits. The roads are simply impassable and messy. The Court Rooms need urgent attention. They are too hostile to the business of adjudication which requires deep intellection. They are repulsive to decency. It is unjust to have the courts in the erstwhile capital of the defunct Western Region, the most advanced in all ramifications, reduce to a huge joke.

May we appeal to the Executive arm of government to come to the aid of the judiciary as urgently as the current partisan consideration will permit. The current hardship can be mitigated by the Governor. He is a man of exquisite taste. The intervention of the State at his private residence around Kolapo Isola Estate is a pointer to the quality of job he can bring to existence. We will not be asking for too much if we demand that the Governor intervene to save the Judiciary from further mockery.

* Ibrahim Lawal is the Head of Chamber, Olujinmi & Akeredolu.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use. The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of CITY LAWYER or its management.

CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

  • EMEKA NWADIOKE
  • Jan 26, 2022
  • 926
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ‘WHY COURT OF APPEAL MUST REVISIT 2021 RULES’

‘WHY COURT OF APPEAL MUST REVISIT 2021 RULES’

The Court of Appeal has issued new rules for the adjudication of appellate cases. In this article, IBRAHIM LAWAL, Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu dissects Order 8 Rule 11 of the Rules dealing with “Deposit against Cost” and concludes that it leaves much to be desired especially as it relates to access to justice

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2021 AND DEPOSIT AGAINST COSTS: NEED TO HAVE A RETHINK.

It is no longer news that the Court of Appeal has given itself a new rules of court that will guide proceedings at the appellate court. The new rule, which commenced on the 1st day of November, 2021, has twenty five orders all together.

There are innovations brought into the rules which are far-reaching and will definitely change the face of adjudication at the appellate court. These innovations are Order 16 which deals with Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Programme (CAADPR); Order 20 which deals with Electronic filling; Order 21 which deals with virtual hearing and Order 22 on Case Scheduling and Management system.

However, an interesting aspect of the rule is Order 8 Rule 11 with the heading, Deposit against Cost. Order 8 Rule 11(1) states as follows:

Upon the transmission of the Record of Appeal, whether by the Registrar of the lower court or by the Appellant, the Appellant shall, within such time as the Registrar of the court shall direct, deposit not less than Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) with the Deputy Registrar of that Division for the due prosecution of the appeal and for the payment of any costs which may be ordered to be paid by the Appellant: Provided that no deposit shall be required from an indigent person or where the deposit would be payable by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or of a state, or by any Government department.

The implication of this rule is that for an Appellant to lodge an appeal, he must be ready to pay Deposit against Cost of nothing less than Fifty Thousand Naira. As laudable as this rule is, considering the purpose for which it was inserted, I respectfully submit that the provision is against the principle of access to justice. Notwithstanding the exception of indigent appellants inserted in the rule, it is still going to hinder many people from accessing justice.

For instance, what is the yardstick for measuring an indigent person? Can we assume that majority of Nigerians can afford N50,000 willy nilly? It is conceded here that Order 13 of the rule clearly specifies how an indigent person should proceed, such procedure will unnecessarily delay the appeals if going by the number of appeals we have in our various appellate courts. When will such motion be listed for hearing and so on.

The reality of our situation as lawyers and minister in the temple of justice is that 90% of criminal cases at the appellate courts are done pro bono. As much as lawyers are encouraged to take pro bono cases, they want to dispense with such cases as quickly as possible. Lawyers virtually use their money to pay for the compilation of records and other ancillary costs, to add to their cost by the application of Order 8 Rule 11 is to discourage them from expanding the frontiers of the law.
Ditto the Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases.

It is my contention that Order 8 Rule 11 should not be applicable to criminal and Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases in order to encourage more access to justice.

Ibrahim Lawal is the Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu of the Law Hub, 9 Ring-Road Opposite Iyaganku GRA Roundabout Ibadan.

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views.