The Validity Or Otherwise Of Ordering Re-adoption Of Final Written Addresses, Enlarging The Constitutional Time Bound For Judgement Delivery

As a general principle of law, parties to a civil or criminal suit are to address the court after the call and examination of witnesses—which include examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination—and tendering of evidence. The address, as provided by various rules of court, is to be in writing, with the nomenclature “Final Written Address”. The purpose of the final written address is to summarise all that transpired during the trial, capturing the pleadings and evidence tendered and admitted. In encapsulating the purposes of the final written address, the court noted the following

A final address is the ultimate speech or submission made in court in respect of the matter before it before the delivery of judgment. A final address consists of a summary of a party’s case. It is a summation of facts admitted, proved or deemed conceded in the trial and the application of the law to the facts. It also highlights any important issues of substantive law or procedure that might result in a decision in favour of the party’s position. Addresses are designed to assist the court, although where the facts are straightforward and primarily not in dispute, the court may dispense with final addresses.

As a rule of law and procedure, the Constitution places a heavy duty on courts of law (courts of records) to, within a specified period of time, deliver judgement in every case. The computation of the time within which every Nigerian court of records has to deliver its judgement is ninety (90) days and starts running from the conclusion of evidence and the adoption of final written addresses. To this end, the provision of Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) clearly provides:

Section 294.

(1) Every court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof.

The question about the practice of RE-ADOPTION of final written addresses came for consideration and settlement in the recent decision of the Learned Justices of the Supreme Court in ONWUAKPA v. ONYEAMA (2022) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1858) 97 (S.C.). The summary of the facts leading to the holdings of the Supreme Court in the case is that the judgement of the trial court, which was delivered on September 28, 2015, after the adoption and conclusion of the final addresses filed by the parties in the case on September 13, 2014, was alleged and argued by the appellant to have been delivered in breach and violation of the provisions of Section 294(1) of the Constitution.

Buttressing the above constitutional provision, the court noted that: The provisions of section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are in simple, plain and straight-forward language in that the words are clear and unambiguous, thereby making their intendment clear. The purport of the provisions is to impose a constitutional and judicial obligation or duty on every court established under the Constitution to deliver its decision in a case in writing within, but no later than, ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and hearing, taking or receiving final addresses from or by the parties. The provisions do not appear to contemplate or envisage any option, choice or discretion on the part of the court but direct strict compliance and obedience therewith.

In appreciating the position of the law as regards non-compliance with the provision of Section 294(1) of the Constitution (as amended), the court, Per Agim, J.S.C., emphasised that:

The re-adoption of the written addresses of the parties for the purpose of restarting and reviving the constitutionally prescribed time limit within which the judgment can be delivered is wrong in law… it is improper exercise of discretion to allow re-argument or re-adoption of written addresses for the purpose of extending the constitutionally prescribed time for the delivery of a judgment of a Superior Court or for the purpose of restarting or reviving such time after it has expired.

Notwithstanding that the practice of calling for re-adoption of final written addresses by parties is not traceable to any law, the provision of subsection 5 to section 294 of the Constitution (as amended) still does not regard the failure of the Court to deliver its judgement within the provision of the Constitution as a nullity. For clarity, the provision is reproduced mutatis mutandis below. It provides: 

Section 294

(5) The decision of a court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, unless the court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof.

The court, in their decision, considered the above provision of the Constitution to be further held, thus:

The introduction of the provision of section 294(5)of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) did not alter, extend, elongate or enlarge the period of time prescribed and limited under the provision of section 294(1) of the Constitution within which the court shall deliver its decision or judgment. Section294(5) only goes to mitigate the otherwise fatal consequence of the breach of or non-compliance with the provision of section 294(1) of automatically rendering a decision or judgment delivered outside or after the expiration of the limited period of ninety days, a nullity, where and when the condition stated therein was satisfied.

Consequently, the Court further noted that for the application of subsection 5 to apply, the party invoking the effect of subsection 5 in respect of subsection 1 of Section 294 thereof must show that he has suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result. The Court unequivocally held that:

For a judgment to be declared invalid and a nullity, the appellant must go beyond establishing a breach of section 294(1) of the Constitution. He must satisfy the court that the non-compliance occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The party complaining must be able to establish that the delay occasioned a miscarriage of justice in that the trial court did not take proper advantage of having seen or heard the witnesses testify or that it had lost its impression of the trial due to such inordinate delay.

While the Court frowns at the practice of trial court causing re-adoption of final written addresses by parties to a suit, the Court further gave instances that would be considered exceptional circumstances that could warrant further or subsequent re-adoption of final written addresses. The court iterated that:

There is no rule of court that provides for a re-adoption of written addresses to circumvent the provisions of section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). What is obtainable in the rules is the provision where the court can recall parties or counsel to address it on a new moot, grey issue or issue raised suo motu by the court not covered by the final written addresses which would require additional submissions to the previously adopted addresses.

The above exception given by the Court only requires additional submissions to the previously adopted addresses but not the re-adoption of an already-adopted final written address. Thus, the exception does not accommodate a situation where the re-adopted addresses were the same addresses already relied upon in respect of their respective cases without a new point of law or fact raised and addressed therein. Worthy of note in this circumstance is that, where it is desirable for a court to entertain further address on an issue not covered in an original final address, in such a situation, time would run from the date of such further address.

In conclusion, the learned wise men of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case at hand admonished and advised that “[a] court should not allow adoption if it cannot deliver judgement within ninety days”. Thus, where there is no need for the court to call counsel or parties to a suit to further address it on a new issue(s)—of law or of fact—no further re-adoption of final written addresses should be entertained to circumvent the breach of Section 294(1) of the Constitution (as amended).

Written By: 

           Muhibudeen Qosim A.,

           Deputy Director of Research and Litigation, Solace Chambers, BUK. 

He can be reached via: 09037074761