A Review of Major Innovations in the 2025 Civil Procedure Rules of the High Court of the FCT

Introduction
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has enacted its new Civil Procedure Rules, effective from March 3, 2025, replacing the previous 2018 Rules. Significant amendments introduced under the new Rules include provisions for electronic filing of court processes, virtual hearings, revised timelines for entering appearances, and adjustments to the lifespan of originating processes, among others^[1].

On November 7, 2024, the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Honourable Justice Husseini Baba Yusuf, promulgated the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2025 (the “New Rules”). This was done in the exercise of his constitutional mandate, thereby establishing new procedural guidelines for the conduct of civil proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court^[2]. The impending Civil Procedure Rules (the “New Rules”) are set to replace the existing 2018 Civil Procedure Rules (the “2018 Rules”) applicable in the High Courts of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Scheduled to take effect on 3 March 2025, the New Rules introduce significant reforms intended to streamline judicial processes. This update provides an overview of key provisions within the New Rules that are relevant to litigants, legal practitioners, and judges operating within the Federal Capital Territory.

Some key innovations in the new rules

1. Electronic filings

The new Rules have significantly modernized the administration of justice by providing comprehensive provisions for electronic filing. Specifically, Part I of Order 3, Rule 5 grants litigants the flexibility to file suits either electronically or through manual submission^[3]. The procedure employed by the Claimant to initiate the action, is the same procedure the Defendant must follow when filing a response to the action^[4]. Also, a Claimant who files a matter electronically may continue in the same manner until determination of the matter. The New Rules also recognize electronic signatures as usable for court processes^[5]. Accordingly, when a document requires a signature or must be made under oath, a party to a legal proceeding may sign it electronically, and such a signature will be regarded as valid. Additionally, if an electronically filed process or document is not filed on time due to a technical malfunction in the court’s filing system, the court may, at its discretion, deem the process or document as properly filed^[6].

2. Life Span of Originating Process

Unlike the 2018 Rules, which prescribed a lifespan of six months for originating processes, the 2025 Rules have extended this period to twelve months^[7]. Under the 2018 Rules, an application to renew an originating process must be made before the expiration of six months from its issuance. However, under the 2025 Rules, such an application may still be made after the expiration of the initial period, provided it is filed within 14 days of the expiration. Additionally, the applicant must satisfy the Court that it was impossible to serve the originating process on the defendant within its validity period^[8].

3. Wider Discretion on Pre-Trial and Case Management Strategies
by e-mail is only subject to the condition that there was an initial contemplation by parties in a written agreement or a subsequent agreement by Counsel in the course of proceedings that service may be effected by e-mails. The 2025 Rules recognize substituted service by e-mail or other electronic means, and do not contemplate either of those pre-conditions^[9].

4. Electronic service of hearing notice

The 2018 Rules provide that the court may serve hearing notices via email and/or SMS except where the judge directs otherwise^[10]. However, under the New Rules, the scope of electronic service has been broadened to encompass alternative electronic platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and other similar means^[11]. This provision is commendable because it aligns with realities of modern society. In Compact Manifold & Energy Services Ltd V. Pazan Services (Nig.) Ltd.^[12], The Court of Appeal has emphasized that the primary purpose of a hearing notice is to inform a party that their matter is scheduled for hearing on the specified date. In our view, expanding the scope of acceptable methods for electronic service would be a progressive step consistent with the realities of today’s digital age^[13].

5. Pre-action counselling certificate to accompany originating papers
Order 2 Rule 8 of the New Rules mandates that a certificate of pre-action counseling, duly signed by both the counsel and the litigant, must accompany all originating processes filed in court^[14]. This provision, absent from the 2018 Rules, appears designed to clarify whether pre-action counseling certificates are mandatory for initiating all forms of actions, particularly those commenced through the undefended list procedure, originating motions, or petitions under the 2018 Rules. Notably, in the case of Babajide v. First Bank Nigeria Ltd, this issue was a point of contention^[15], the issue that arose was whether the requirement to file a certificate of pre-action counselling alongside originating processes applies to actions commenced under the undefended list procedure. The court determined that this requirement does not apply, as Order 35 of the 2018 Rules does not expressly list a certificate of pre-action counselling as one of the mandatory documents for initiating undefended list actions^[16].

6. Time to Enter Appearance

The 2025 Rules have extended the timeframe within which a defendant is required to file their memorandum of appearance and other court documents. According to Order 11, Rule 1 of the 2025 Rules, and subject to the provisions of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, a defendant who has been served with an originating process must file, within twenty-one (21) days, the necessary copies of the completed and signed memorandum of appearance at the court registry for service on the opposing party.^[17]” This provision has given the defendant ample time to enter an appearance and defend any suit against him, unlike the 2018 Rules that provided for 7 days^[18].

The period of 21 days for the defendant to file a statement of defense, set-off, or counterclaim after being served with the originating processes remains unchanged. Similarly, the claimant continues to have 14 days to file a reply upon receiving the statement of defense, set-off, or counterclaim^[19].

7. Setting Aside Default Judgment

Under the 2025 Rules, the stringent conditions for setting aside a default judgment have been adjusted. Unlike the 2018 Rules, which strongly emphasized the validity and finality of default judgments, allowing them to be set aside only upon application to the court on three specific grounds—fraud, non-service, and lack of jurisdiction—the new framework introduces a more flexible approach^[20]. However the 2025 Rules only provide that default judgment can be set aside upon application made within 14 days of the date of the judgment and upon terms as the court may deem fit^[21]. This seems to allow the Judge greater discretion before whom an application for setting aside a default judgment is brought.

8. Stay of Execution of Judgments from Lower courts

Unlike the 2018 Rules which provides that applications for stay of execution pending appeal can be made ex parte^[22], the New Rules states that such applications can only be made on notice^[23]. Also, under the 2018 Rules, where an application is made for stay of execution, the court may order that the Appellant’s property be sold and the net proceed be deposited with the court pending determination of the appeal^[24]. However, this condition has been removed by the 2025 Rules. Meaning, court will no longer order the sale of the Appellant’s property as condition for stay execution of judgement.

10. Alternative Dispute Resolution provisions

Under the 2018 Rules, when a matter is first brought before the Court, the judge is required, where appropriate, to grant the parties a period not exceeding 30 days to explore the possibility of settlement. The 2025 Rules have broadened the scope for alternative dispute resolution by providing that, during the course of proceedings, the judge may, at their discretion, grant the parties time to explore potential avenues for resolving the dispute amicably^[25].”Where parties consent to explore a settlement of their dispute, the Court or judge shall by an enrolled order, refer the case to the Abuja Multidoor Courthouse for resolution within 21 days except the Court otherwise orders”^[26]. These provisions of ADR will be of great advantage in ensuring the decongestion of cases in Courts as well as enhancing speedy dispensation of cases.
11. Cases involving Interlocutory applications:

1. Reply on point of law
   The 2025 Rules has reduced the number of days for filing of Reply on points of law and Affidavits to Motions from 7 days to 5 days^[27].
2. Non-contentious motions
   Under the 2025 Rules, Courts are authorized to handle non-contentious applications in chambers, either with or without the appearance of counsel. Additionally, the Court may deem the written addresses filed in support of such applications as duly adopted^[28].

Cost for withdrawing suit

Under the 2018 Rules, a Claimant has the discretion to, at any time before receipt of the defense or after receipt of the defensedefense but before taking any other step in the action, discontinue his claim against all or any of the Defendants in the suit. The Claimant will be required to pay costs to the defendant(s) where he discontinues or withdraws the suit^[29]. The 2025 Rules also retain this provision concerning withdrawal of actions and goes further to expunge the requirement for payment of costs by the Claimant^[30]. Thus, where a claimant withdraws the case before the filing of defense, no costs will be paid to the defendant.

Fast-track matters
Under the New Rules, fast-track proceedings are limited to only Banker/Customer transactions and Commercial Transactions^[31]. This is different from the position under the 2018 Rules where fast-track proceedings also apply to Landlord and tenant disputes, cases relating to Federal Capital Territory or Area Council Revenue, and cases requested by parties to be proceeded by way of Fast track^[32]. Additionally, the substantive monetary claim in actions under fast-track in the New Rules has been increased from N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira)^[33] to N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira)^[34], and causes under fast track now attract a non-refundable Fast Track fee of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira)^[35].

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the 2025 Civil Procedure Rules of the High Court of the FCT represent a significant advancement in the administration of justice, with an emphasis on efficiency, modernity, and accessibility. By incorporating electronic filing, expanding the scope of alternative dispute resolution, adjusting timelines for appearances, and streamlining processes for handling interlocutory applications and non-contentious motions, the new Rules aim to address long-standing challenges in the judicial system. These reforms not only align with global best practices but also reflect a deliberate effort to reduce delays, enhance case management, and promote a more effective dispute resolution mechanism within the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

REFERENCE

1. Victoria Achilihu;Notable Innovations In The Recent High Court Of The Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2025, Compos Mentis Legal Practitioners. Available at https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/civil-law/1596240/notable-innovations-in-the-recent-high-court-of-the-federal-capital-territory-civil-procedure-rules-2025 Accessed March 2025. ↑
2. Section 274 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the Chief Judge of the State to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court of the State. Available at https://www.templars-law.com/app/uploads/2025/02/Client-Alert_FCT-High-Court-Issues-New-Civil-Procedure-Rules.pdf Accessed March 2025. ↑
3. Order 3 Part I, Rule 5 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
4. bid, Rule 6. ↑
5. Ibid, Rule 9. ↑
6. Order 3 Part I, Rule 11. ↑
7. Order 3 Part 1 Rule 7. ↑
8. Order 8 Rule 6(1). ↑
9. Ibid, Order 9 Rule 11(3)(d). ↑
10. Order 7 Rule 17 of the 2018 Rules. ↑
11. Order 9 Rule 17 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
12. (2017) LPELR-41913 (CA). ↑
13. TEMPLARS Client Alert | FCT High Court Issues New Civil Procedure Rules: Key Updates Available at https://www.templars-law.com/app/uploads/2025/02/Client-Alert_FCT-High-Court-Issues-New-Civil-Procedure-Rules.pdf, Accessed March 2025. ↑
14. The 2025 Rules defines originating process to mean any court process by which a suit is initiated. See Order 1 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
15. Suit No. CV/3415/2020 delivered on 23 February 2022 Available at https://www.fcthighcourt.gov.ng/?file=FOLORUNSHO-MICHAEL-BABAJIDE-VS.-FIRST-BANK-OFNIGERIA-LTD-JURISDICTION.pdf Accessed March 2025. ↑
16. Ibid. ↑
17. Ibid. ↑
18. Order 11 Rule 1 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
19. Order 15 Rule 1(2) & (3) of the 2025 Rules. ↑
20. Ibid, Order 21 Rule 12. ↑
21. Ibid, Order 20 Rule 12. ↑
22. Order 50 Rule 24 (4) of the 2018 Rules. ↑
23. Order 46 Rule 23 (4) of the 2025 Rules. ↑
24. Order 50 Rule 24 (4) (e) of the 2018 Rules. ↑
25. Order 28 Rule 1 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
26. Order 28 Rule 3(1) of the 2025 Rules. ↑
27. Order 30 Rule 1 (4) of the 2025 Rules. ↑
28. Order 30 Rule 4 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
29. Order 24 Rule 1(1) of the 2018 Rules. ↑
30. Order 23 Rule 3 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
31. Order 41 Rule 2 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
32. See Order 37 Rule 4 of the 2018 Rules. ↑
33. Previously provided by the 2018 Rules. ↑
34. Order 41 Rule 3 of the 2025 Rules. ↑
35. Ibid, Rule 7. ↑