In 2024, the Supreme Court of Nigeria brought into effect a new set of procedural guidelines, the Supreme Court Rules 2024, replacing the decades-old Supreme Court Rules 1985. The 2024 Rules introduce several novel provisions that will reshape appellate practice in Nigeria in a comprehensive reform to strengthen the administration of justice. This article will examine some important changes, their legal and practical implications, and what they mean for the bench, bar, and litigants.
Some of the Key Changes in the Supreme Court Rules 2024
- Redefining the Point of Entry for Appeals
A significant and foundational shift introduced by the Supreme Court Rules 2024 is the redefinition of what constitutes an appeal for procedural purposes. Under the former Supreme Court Rules, particularly Order 1 Rule 2 of the 1985 Rules, the term appeal was interpreted broadly. It encompassed not only a formal notice of appeal but also applications for leave to appeal. This expansive interpretation allowed appellants to file interlocutory applications, such as motions for stay of execution or injunction, even if the appeal had not yet been formally entered, as long as a notice of appeal or application for leave had been filed.
The 2024 Rules, however, mark a decisive turn from that liberal position. Order 1 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024, which serves as the interpretation clause, now provides a more explicit definition. An appeal is defined as the formal “entry of appeal after the record has been transmitted from the lower court.” In practical terms, this means that the Supreme Court shall be seised of an appeal proceeding in its entirety where its registry receives the record of proceedings from the court below, occasioning the entertainment of every application therein made to the Supreme Court. This new provision suggests that an application such as one for the stay of proceedings or execution may now be dependent upon the appeal being formally entered at the Supreme Court registry.
Another practical effect of this change is that litigants must now exercise greater procedural diligence and strategic foresight. Any delay in the transmission of records from the lower courts could substantially impair an appellant’s ability to seek timely protection of their rights. For instance, a party that seeks to stay the execution of a high-stakes judgment may find that their application is procedurally incompetent if the appeal has not been entered in line with the new definition.
This suggests an intention to curb premature filings and to streamline the appellate process. It also shows a broader institutional effort to ensure that the Court’s docket is not burdened by interlocutory applications in appeals that have not been properly constituted and introduces a more structured and formal threshold for appellate intervention. Legal practitioners must now be more proactive in managing the timelines for compiling and transmitting records of appeal and in advising clients about the implications of delays.
- Reformed Service of Notice of Appeal
This is another procedural innovation introduced by the new rules, which is the reform of how notices of appeal are to be served. This has been a longstanding area of confusion in appellate practice. Before these new Rules, there was considerable ambiguity about the acceptable methods of service, particularly in situations where the respondent had already engaged counsel. The lack of clarity often led to technical objections, unnecessary interlocutory applications, and avoidable delays in the appellate process.
Order 3 Rule 2 of the 2024 Rules offers a welcome resolution by clearly outlining the permissible modes of service of a notice of appeal. Under this provision, a notice of appeal may now be validly served in three distinct ways: (1) by personal service on the respondent, (2) through the respondent’s counsel who represented him at the court below or (3) via electronic means in line with established procedural protocols. This straightforward articulation removes the guesswork that previously characterised appellate service requirements.
More importantly, the Rules go further to state unequivocally that objections based solely on the absence of personal service will no longer be entertained. This provision signals a deliberate policy shift away from rigid formalism toward a more functional and justice-centred approach to appellate procedure. By eliminating personal service as a strict requirement where service through counsel or electronic channels is successfully effected, the Rules prevent parties from using technicalities to derail the appeal process.
This reform carries substantial practical significance. First, it aligns with contemporary realities where legal representation is a central feature of appellate litigation, and parties are typically in communication through their lawyers. Second, it embraces the use of digital tools for communication, thereby promoting cost-effectiveness and timeliness. In an era where electronic filing and virtual proceedings are increasingly the norm, this development shows the judiciary’s recognition of the need for adaptability and modernisation.
- Provides Clear Obligations for Legal Practitioners and Promotes Procedural Integrity
The rules provide express obligations imposed on counsel who receive court processes on behalf of a party they no longer represent. Under Order 3 Rule 3, legal practitioners who are served with a notice of appeal or any other originating process but no longer act for the intended recipient are required to notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court within seven days of receiving such process. Failure to comply with this obligation may expose the counsel to costs and potentially even disciplinary proceedings, depending on the gravity of the default.
This provision serves multiple purposes. First, it enhances procedural integrity by reducing the risk of processes being misdirected or ignored due to a breakdown in communication between parties and their former legal representatives. Second, it ensures that the Court is promptly informed of the correct legal representation, thereby allowing for accurate record-keeping and proper administration of justice. From a broader perspective, this rule strengthens professional accountability in appellate litigation. By codifying this responsibility, the Rules place a clear duty on practitioners to act with honesty and diligence, even after the termination of an attorney-client relationship. It also curbs any potential misuse of procedural lapses where former counsel might inadvertently or deliberately frustrate the progress of an appeal.
Importantly, this reform aligns with the overarching aim of the 2024 Rules, which is to promote efficiency, transparency, and trust in the administration of justice at the highest level. Normally, in litigation, representation frequently changes, especially between the trial and appellate stages. This provision introduces a much-needed safeguard that ensures the integrity of service and procedural timelines is preserved.
This also marks a shift from informal expectations to a formalised rule of conduct. Legal practitioners appearing before the Supreme Court must not only be advocates but also custodians of ethical practice, guided by obligations that transcend active representation
- Revised Application Procedures
The Rules introduce a well-defined framework for making applications before the Court, marking a shift from the more open-ended procedures of the previous regime. Under the former rules, applications were typically brought by way of motion supported by affidavit, with relevant rules and statutory authorities cited within the body of the motion. While functionally sufficient, the old system often led to lengthy, unstructured submissions and inconsistent practices.
Order 4 of the new Rules establishes a more streamlined and disciplined approach to motion practice, which requires that all applications must now be accompanied by a written address that must not exceed ten pages. This formalises the expectation of brevity and coherence in legal argumentation and helps focus the Court’s attention on the core issues in dispute.
The 2024 Rules impose strict page limits on all written submissions related to applications, which are:
a) 10 pages for the applicant’s address,
b) 7 pages for the respondent’s opposition, and
c) 5 pages for any reply by the applicant.
These limits are designed to promote clarity, discipline, and time management within appellate proceedings. They are also meant to curb verbosity and encourage counsel to present their arguments concisely. Furthermore, the Rules bring certainty to filing timelines. Respondents are now given 14 days to file their responses to an application, while applicants have 7 days to file a reply. Legal practitioners must now be more deliberate in crafting their arguments, prioritising substance over volume and avoiding repetitive or tangential submissions.
- Three-Tiered Approach to Time Extensions
The rule also sets out a three-tiered framework for applications for extension of time in Order 4 Rule 15. This approach reflects an effort to strike a balance between procedural flexibility and the need for strict adherence to timelines in appellate proceedings.
Under this provision, a party seeking additional time to take a required procedural step must now navigate a clearly defined progression, which is:
a) Automatic Extension: The first layer grants a one-time automatic extension, equal in duration to the original time prescribed by the Rules. This allows litigants some breathing room to regularise their processes without immediately resorting to a formal application.
b) Discretionary Extension with Sanctions: If the automatic extension period lapses without compliance, the defaulting party may apply for a discretionary extension. However, this is no longer granted as a matter of course. The Court may impose penalties or cost sanctions as a consequence of the delay. The intention here is to deter habitual tardiness and encourage counsel to comply with established timelines.
c) Final Extension on a sole ground: The final layer closes the bar in its entirety. After the initial two periods, no further extension shall be granted except upon an explicit demonstration that the appeal is one against a death sentence. This ensures the absolute restraint of litigants from abusing the justice system and deters the indefinite delay of the appellate process under the guise of administrative necessity or oversight.
Legal practitioners must now be proactive and strategic in managing appellate timelines. Failure to act within the prescribed periods could result in the forfeiture of the right to pursue certain applications, unless the sole exceptional reason is provided and accepted by the Court.
- Stricter Requirements for Extension Applications
The Rules introduce more exacting formal requirements for applications seeking leave to appeal or extension of time, under the new regime, mere invocation of delay or oversight is no longer sufficient. Instead, applicants must now satisfy both substantive and documentary requirements before such applications can be considered.
Most notably, applicants must still demonstrate “good and substantial reasons” for their failure to act within the prescribed time, a standard that has long guided the Court’s discretion. However, the 2024 Rules now impose an additional requirement to ensure that only well-founded and properly prepared applications are entertained.
Applicants are required to attach the following documents to their motion:
a) A certified true copy of the judgment or ruling sought to be appealed;
b) A copy of the Court of Appeal’s ruling on an earlier application for leave, where relevant;
c) A concise written address supporting the application, within the prescribed page limits under Order 4.
These formal requirements serve a vital purpose by mandating the inclusion of key judicial documents, The Rules ensure that the Supreme Court has a complete and accurate record on which to assess the legitimacy of the request. This is to aid judicial efficiency and also curtails the filing of speculative or frivolous motions for extension.
For legal practitioners, the implication is that greater diligence, preparation, and precision are now required when initiating appeals outside the regular timelines. Failure to meet these requirements may lead to summary dismissal of the application, irrespective of the substantive merits of the appeal itself.
- Enhanced Case Management
The Rules introduce early case management procedures designed to identify and isolate key issues at preliminary stages. This includes better scheduling of hearings and prioritisation of urgent matters. The emphasis on proactive docket control is expected to reduce backlogs and promote judicial economy.
Under this new rule, parties may be required to participate in pre-hearing conferences, where the Court may:
a) Direct parties to clarify the core issues on appeal;
b) Streamline the list of authorities and documents to be relied upon;
c) Set realistic timelines for the exchange of briefs and hearing of motions
Increased Use of Technology
Recognising the post-pandemic shift in legal processes, the Rules now permit electronic filing, service, and virtual hearings. These provisions institutionalise practices adopted during COVID-19 and are aligned with efforts to digitise court procedures nationwide.
This means that parties can file applications, serve notices of appeal, and communicate with the Registry using digital platforms, eliminating unnecessary delays associated with physical submissions.
Beyond filings, the Rules also introduce provisions for virtual hearings, allowing the Supreme Court to hear matters remotely where appropriate. This is particularly significant in matters requiring urgent attention or in cases involving parties located in distant jurisdictions.
Why These Changes Matter
- Improved Access and Efficiency: The combination of tighter deadlines, streamlined applications, and digital tools will significantly reduce procedural delays, enhancing access to swift justice.
- Greater Clarity and Accountability: Clear guidelines on service, appeal definitions, and counsel obligations reduce procedural ambiguities, promoting professionalism and reducing abuse of process.
- Boost to Public Confidence: These reforms reflect a judicial system that is evolving to meet societal needs, which can only strengthen public trust in its fairness and relevance.
- Conformance with Global Trends: Nigeria’s judiciary now joins other jurisdictions that have modernised appellate rules to balance efficiency with due process.
- Reduced Backlogs: By eliminating procedural loopholes and encouraging active case management, the Rules are positioned to reduce the volume of pending appeals before the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court Rules 2024 mark a pivotal moment in the evolution of appellate practice in Nigeria. By refining core procedural elements, such as the definition of appeal, service rules, digital access, and lawyer obligations, these reforms aim to create a faster, fairer, and more functional judicial process. While their full impact will unfold over time, these Rules set a progressive benchmark for procedural justice, with hope for a more responsive and Judicial system.