Kaduna, Nigeria – March 21, 2026 – The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna has set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in the fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, and ordered a fresh trial before another judge. The appellate court held that the lower court’s proceedings violated El-Rufai’s right to fair hearing, describing the entire process as fundamentally flawed.
The case stems from an investigation conducted by the Kaduna State House of Assembly, which had set up an ad hoc committee to probe financial dealings of the state government between 2015 and 2023. The panel subsequently indicted El-Rufai over an alleged N400 billion fraud. Following the indictment, the former governor approached the Federal High Court, arguing that he was never invited by the committee and was denied the opportunity to defend himself before adverse findings were made against him.
However, the trial court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Kaduna State High Court. That decision prompted El-Rufai to appeal.
Court Faults Service of Hearing Notice
In its ruling delivered on March 17, 2026, the Court of Appeal held that there was no proof that El-Rufai was properly served with a hearing notice. The court emphasized that service of court processes is a fundamental requirement for any valid proceeding and that failure to properly notify a party robs the court of jurisdiction.
“The lower court ought to have insisted on the production of acceptable proof of service to ascertain that the appellant was indeed served with hearing notice,” the court held.
The respondents had claimed that a hearing notice was sent via text message to El-Rufai’s lawyer. The appellate court rejected this argument, pointing out inconsistencies in the phone numbers presented and stating that there was no solid evidence to support the claim.
The court also faulted the trial court’s reliance on oral statements by a court official without proper documentation, describing such an approach as falling short of legal standards.
“Failure to Serve Goes to the Root of the Case”
According to the judgment, the failure to serve hearing notice denied El-Rufai the opportunity to respond to filings, including a counter-affidavit that was used against him. The court stressed that such a fundamental lapse cannot be overlooked.
“Failure to serve court process, such as a hearing notice, goes to the root of the case. It is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction,” the court stated.
The appellate court noted that El-Rufai was entitled to time to respond, particularly to points of law raised against him, and that such timelines cannot be ignored. The court further observed that the lower court proceeded to determine the case on the same day it accepted the respondents’ filings—a procedural irregularity that undermined the fairness of the proceedings.
Fresh Trial Ordered Before Another Judge
Describing the entire process as defective, the Court of Appeal declared the proceedings null and void. It then ordered that the case be heard afresh before a different judge of the Federal High Court. The court also directed all parties involved to bear their respective costs.
The ruling represents a significant legal victory for the former governor, whose legal team had consistently argued that the proceedings against him were conducted without due regard for his right to fair hearing. The appellate court’s decision effectively nullifies the earlier proceedings and affords El-Rufai the opportunity to present his case before an impartial judicial officer.
Background of the Case
The Kaduna State House of Assembly’s ad hoc committee had conducted an investigation into the financial dealings of the state government during El-Rufai’s eight-year tenure as governor. The committee later released a report indicting him over an alleged N400 billion fraud, though El-Rufai maintained that he was never invited to appear before the panel or given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Following the indictment, the former governor sought judicial intervention, arguing that his fundamental rights had been violated. The Federal High Court initially declined jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Kaduna State High Court, a decision that El-Rufai challenged on appeal.
Implications of the Ruling
The Court of Appeal’s decision sets aside the earlier procedural irregularities and mandates a fresh hearing before a different judge. Legal observers note that the ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that every litigant is entitled to fair hearing, and that courts must ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements, particularly regarding service of processes.
For El-Rufai, the judgment provides an opportunity to challenge the allegations against him on the merits, with the assurance that his right to be heard will be respected. The matter will now return to the Federal High Court for a fresh determination before a different judicial officer.
As of the time of this report, the Kaduna State House of Assembly and other respondents have not issued an official statement regarding the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
