When this Court in ARIORI v. ELEMO (1983) 1 SCNLR 1 and FAWEHINMI v. NBA (No.2) (1989) 4 SC (Pt.1) 63 stated that a party can waive a right inuring to him for fair hearing/trial, it also made it clear that the public right to speedy trial or determination by the Court within a reasonable time cannot be waived.
No litigant, as I stated in ANPP & ANOR. v. INEC & ORS. (2008) LPELR - 9256 (CA), has a right to unnecessarily delay the hearing of his suit and move the Court to proceed at his pace. In order to give effect to the liberty of an accused person incarcerated the essentiality of speedy trial imposes a duty on the Court and the parties [including their counsel) to ensure that any antics or gimmicks aimed at delaying the determination of the matter must be avoided.
In DARIYE v. FRN (2015) 6 NWLR (pt.1467) 325 at 362 delay tactics employed by the rich and powerful designed to cripple criminal justice system was loudly deprecated. No litigant has that right or privilege. The parties in litigation have the right to have their case/matter fairly considered: UDOFIA v. THE STATE (1984) LPELR - 3806 (SC). The Court, in my firm view, cannot be guilty of undue haste, if in its decision, the issues in the case or matter are fairly considered.
In all the instances where hasty decisions or actions of the adjudicating body were held to be hasty and amounting to denial of justice in the proceedings those decisions or actions were shown to be aimed at frustrating the legal rights of one of the litigants.
In DARIYE v. FRN (supra) the antics were aimed at delaying trial. In AKABOGU v. AKABOGU (2007) NWLR (pt.826) 445 and DURU v. FRN (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt.1351) 441, the actions or decisions of the adjudicating body were found respectively, to be aimed at denying the right of the appellant to address the trial judge, or to frustrate the appellants right of appeal. That is not the situation in this appeal.
The appellant has not shown satisfactorily that the Court of Appeal did anything wrong in law that compromised his right to fair hearing/trial when upon the adoption of the briefs of argument by the parties through their respective counsel it retired and delivered its judgment within only a few hours.
Section 307 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 providing that when the case for both sides is closed, the Court shall consider its verdict and for this purpose may retire or adjourn the trial, read together with Section 36(1) of the Constitution, supports the procedure adopted by the Court of Appeal. Rather than condemn the Court of Appeal, I hereby commend the learned justices for their industry and enterprise."
per Ejembi Eko JSC in
