HON. FATIMA RASAKI V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) (2018)

Background

This appeal arises from a ruling of the Court of Appeal concerning filing fees for the appellants' brief of argument. The appellants, Hon. Fatima Rasaki and others, faced dismissal of their appeal due to under-assessment of filing fees and failure to include penalties for late filing.

Issues

The main issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the appellants’ appeal based on inadequacy of filing fees.
2. Whether the first respondent had waived their right to object to the appeal by taking fresh steps after becoming aware of the alleged irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

1. The inadequacy of filing fees constitutes a mere irregularity that does not vitiate the proceedings. The court's discretion must be exercised judiciously, and striking out an appeal for such inadequacy is a wrong exercise of that discretion.
2. Litigants should not be penalized for the procedural errors of their counsel.
3. Failure to pay appropriate fees does not affect the court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
4. A party taking fresh steps after becoming aware of an irregularity waives their right to complain about that irregularity.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

1. The Court of Appeal failed to consider the fact that the appellants had sought to rectify the issue by paying the necessary fees.
2. The first respondent had, by filing their brief after becoming aware of the fee irregularity, waived the right to object to the appellants' process.
3. The discretionary power exercised by the lower court was inappropriate, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out the appeal was unfair and did not serve the interest of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby reinstating the original appeal.

Significance

This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that substantial justice prevails in legal proceedings, emphasizing that procedural lapses, such as inadequate filing fees, should not preclude a litigant from having their case heard. It also clarifies the extent of the court's discretion regarding the assessment of filing fees and the treatment of irregularities in legal processes.