The Supreme Court Rules, 2024 effectively repealed and replaced the longstanding Supreme Court Rules of 1985. The 2024 Rules have already sparked considerable interest within legal circles, particularly among practitioners in Nigeria's dispute resolution landscape. In light of these developments, this article seeks to illuminate the key changes introduced in the 2024 Rules, with a particular focus on their implications for the civil appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
A significant change introduced by the 2024 Rules pertains to the definition of "appeal." Under Order 1 Rule 2 of the 1985 Rules, the interpretation clause encompassed the notion that “appeal includes an application for leave to appeal.” This provision facilitated the ability to seek injunctions pending appeal, or to request a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, as well as stays of proceedings, all grounded in an application for leave to appeal.
However, Order 1 Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules revises this definition, stating that “Appeal means entry of Appeal after the record of appeal has been transmitted from the Court below.” Subject to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, this change suggests that an application for an injunction pending appeal, a stay of execution, or a stay of proceedings may now be contingent upon the appeal being formally entered at the Supreme Court registry.
In essence, the mere filing of a notice of appeal or an application for leave to appeal may no longer suffice to establish a valid appeal for the purposes of these applications.
One of the more controversial decisions of the Supreme Court in recent times, is the case of Odey v. Alaga, which borders on the question of service of notice of appeal. While the 1985 Rules provided for the service of originating processes, including notices of appeal, on parties, the Supreme Court had in practice allowed for notices of appeal to be validly served only on the respondent(s) from the court below.
For instance, in Saleh v. Abah. the Supreme Court encountered a situation where the notices of appeal were not personally served on the respondents but were instead placed “in the care of” their counsel. The respondents challenged the competence of the appeal based on this service method. The Supreme Court affirmed the established principle under the 1985 Rules when it held that service on a “legally and formally acknowledged representative” of a respondent is good, competent and effective service. However, when faced with the same objection, in the case of Odey v. Alaga, a case in which the respondents had been served through their counsel; they had filed their respondents’ brief; and the Supreme Court had previously granted the appellant leave to serve the notice of appeal by substituted means, yet the Supreme Court in a narrow majority decision of 4:3 (with Muhammad, Ogunwumiju, and Agim, JJSC dissenting), upheld a preliminary objection on service on counsel and struck out the notice of appeal.
Fortunately, the introduction of the 2024 Rules has effectively resolved this controversy. Order 3 Rule 2 explicitly states that a notice of appeal shall be served on the respondent(s) either personally, on their legal practitioner who represented them at the Court of Appeal, or through electronic mail or other electronic means.
To clarify, the Rules further assert that while personal service of a Writ of Summons in the Court’s original jurisdiction or a notice of appeal is generally required, once these updated provisions have been complied with —whether by serving the respondent's legal practitioner or using electronic methods— no objection shall lie on the ground only that the Notice of Appeal was not served personally. This enhancement aims to streamline the appellate process and mitigate procedural challenges arising from service disputes, thereby fostering a more efficient judicial system.
Notably, Order 3 Rule 3 introduces a crucial obligation for legal practitioners who receive a notice of appeal or any other process on behalf of a client that they no longer represent. Under this provision, such practitioners must notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court within seven days of service that they are no longer authorised to accept service on behalf of that party.
Importantly, the Rules stipulate that failure to inform the Registrar may result in the practitioner being ordered to pay any costs incurred due to this omission. Furthermore, such negligence could be deemed an act of professional misconduct. This provision aims to ensure accountability within the legal process, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the appellate system and protecting the rights of all parties involved.
--
Read the full publication at Templars