Introduction
One of the fundamental principles of justice is that a party to a suit must be aware of the proceedings to exercise their right to be heard. This is where the concept of hearing notice comes in — a formal communication from the court informing parties of the date of hearing. With technological advancements, Nigerian courts have embraced electronic methods such as SMS, email, and phone calls for serving hearing notices. This article explores the validity of electronic service of hearing notices, drawing on notable Nigerian case law.
The Legal Position: Embracing Technology
In COMPACT MANIFOLD & ENERGY SERVICES LTD v. PAZAN SERVICES NIG. LTD (2019) LPELR-49221(SC), the Supreme Court upheld that serving hearing notice electronically (e.g., via SMS) is lawful and does not violate the right to fair hearing. The Court noted that while service of process is fundamental, the method of notification may be electronic so long as the party is duly informed.
“The regularity of service is no longer jettisoned because it was made electronically as the current rules of Court have ensured.” — Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
Similarly, the Court of Appeal in KEDCO PLC & ANOR v. SINTILAWA & ANOR (2021) LPELR-56707(CA)condemned the outdated insistence on hardcopy notices:
“These postulations represent the archaic thinking and ancient position of the law… Indeed, electronic service has taken root in the Nigerian legal system and it would be strange for anybody to frown at being served electronically.” — Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JCA
Thus, electronic notification is consistent with modern court rules, and courts have the discretion to direct notification in any reasonable manner, including by text message or phone call.
Service Must Still Be Timely
While electronic service is acceptable, it must also comply with any timeframe specified by law or court rules. In the same KEDCO case, the Court held that failure to give at least 48 hours’ notice (as required by the applicable Practice Directions) rendered the proceedings null and void for breaching the appellant’s right to fair hearing.
The Court stated:
“The law is that such a provision makes the effluxion of forty-eight hours between the date of the notification and the date of hearing a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court to hear the matter on the scheduled date.”
Thus, while the medium of service may adapt to technology, the requirement of sufficient notice remains fundamental.
Service on Counsel or Chambers
Another notable clarification came from FBN PLC v. T.S.A INDUSTRIES LTD (2015) LPELR-25860(CA) where the Court explained that hearing notices served on any person in the chambers of counsel — whether a clerk, secretary, or another lawyer — constitutes valid service. Hearing notice, unlike an originating process, is simply to notify, not to personally serve.
Importance of Hearing Notice
As reiterated in HERITAGE BANK v. AWOLESI (2022) LPELR-57732(CA), failure to serve hearing notice properly — whether electronically or otherwise — strikes at the root of jurisdiction and renders proceedings a nullity:
“Service of a hearing notice on a party… is foundational to the administration of justice. It ensures that the adverse party is given an opportunity to be heard in every aspect of the case…” — Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JCA
Key Takeaways
✅ Electronic service of hearing notices (SMS, calls, email) is legally valid in Nigeria.
✅ The method must comply with any prescribed timelines (e.g., 48 hours before hearing).
✅ Service on any member of the counsel’s chambers is acceptable.
✅ Failure to serve hearing notice properly affects the court’s jurisdiction.
✅ Rules of court are designed to aid justice — not to be used as technical traps.
Conclusion
The Nigerian judiciary has recognized that justice should not be hampered by rigid adherence to outdated practices. Electronic service aligns with modern realities, facilitating speedier and more efficient justice delivery — provided it is timely and effectively informs the party concerned.
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal questions should be directed to a qualified legal practitioner.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.