Contributor: Ifediora Obiora Chisom

Introduction

On 30 June 2026, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, GCON, acting pursuant to the powers conferred on her by section 236 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), issued the Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026 (the ‘Practice Directions’).^[1] The Practice Directions, which took effect on 1 July 2026,^[2] represent a significant step in the Supreme Court’s continuing efforts to digitise court administration, improve access to court records, enhance the efficiency of justice delivery, and align judicial processes with contemporary technological developments.^[3]

The reform is particularly timely given the procedural and practical difficulties that have traditionally attended the compilation and transmission of records of appeal. Against this background, this article undertakes a concise review of the Practice Directions, highlighting their most significant innovations and examining the practical challenges emerging from their implementation. It concludes by proposing measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the new regime and advance the access-to-justice objectives underlying the reform.

Key Provisions Introduced by the Practice Direction

1. Applicability and Scope: The Practice Directions apply to all matters pending before the Supreme Court as at 1 July 2026, as well as matters commenced after that date.^[4] Accordingly, parties to proceedings that were already pending before the commencement of the Practice Directions must comply with the new electronic filing requirements. After the prescribed deadline expires, a matter will not be scheduled for hearing unless all processes filed in the matter have been submitted in accordance with the Practice Directions.

2. Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Records and Filed Processes: The Practice Directions require parties to submit electronic copies of the prescribed records and court processes through the Supreme Court’s designated online portal or any other portal subsequently designated by the Chief Registrar.^[5] In pending matters, each party must submit electronic copies of records and processes filed by that party, as well as those served on that party by another party to the proceedings.^[6] For matters commenced after the Practice Directions took effect, each party is required to submit electronic copies of the processes filed by that party.^[7]

3. Submission Requirements for Electronic Documents: All electronic documents must be submitted in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR)-enabled PDF format, with the text fully searchable to enhance accessibility and navigation.^[8] Each document must also include a hyperlinked table of contents at the beginning to facilitate navigation to specific sections.^[9]

4. Deadline for Electronic and Physical Submission of Documents: Unless otherwise directed by the Chief Justice, electronic copies of documents in pending matters must be submitted no later than 30 days before the hearing.^[10] Hard copies of electronically filed documents must be submitted to the Registry within seven days or 48 hours before the hearing, whichever is earlier.^[11] Where a party fails to comply with the prescribed deadline, the matter will not be scheduled for hearing unless all processes filed in the matter have been submitted in accordance with the Practice Directions.^[12]

5. Declaration of Competence and Authenticity: A party or counsel making an electronic submission must make a solemn declaration on oath, in the manner prescribed on the submission portal, affirming that the electronic copies submitted constitute a true and complete version of the documents filed before the Court.^[13]

6. Mandatory Formatting of all Processes: The Practice Directions prescribe mandatory formatting requirements for every process filed before the Court. Each process must have standard margins of 2.54 centimetres at the top, bottom, left and right sides of every page.^[14] It must also be legible, well-bound, prepared on A4 paper measuring 210mm by 297mm, and typed in clear typographic characters. The prescribed fonts are Arial, Times New Roman or Tahoma, in 14-point size, with at least 1.5-line spacing.^[15] A process that does not comply with these formatting requirements will not be accepted for filing on the Nigeria Case Management System (NCMS) or at the Court’s physical Registry. Where a non-compliant process is inadvertently accepted, it will not be deemed properly filed.^[16]

7. Direct Compilation and Transmission of Record by Appellant: The Practice Directions permit an appellant in general civil or criminal proceedings, upon written notice to the Registrar of the Court below, to compile and transmit the Record of Appeal directly to the Supreme Court before the period prescribed for transmission by the Registrar of the Court below expires.^[17] Where that period expires without transmission of the Record, the appellant must compile and transmit the Record of Appeal within 30 days thereafter.^[18] Similar rights of direct compilation and transmission apply to fast-track criminal appeals under Order 14 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 and appeals in election matters under Order 15, subject to the timelines applicable to those proceedings.^[19]

8. Date of Transmission of Record of Appeal: A Record of Appeal is deemed to have been transmitted to the Supreme Court on the date an electronic copy is uploaded onto the NCMS platform, and an Appeal Number is generated.^[20]

9. Fee for Transmission of Record of Appeal: In addition to any amount assessed by the Registrar of the Court below for the compilation and transmission of the Record of Appeal, an appellant must, upon transmission and uploading of the Record, pay a fee of ₦500,000 or such other amount as the Chief Justice may prescribe from time to time.^[21] A party requesting the transmission and uploading of additional copies of the Record of Appeal must similarly pay ₦250,000 or such other amount as the Chief Justice may prescribe from time to time.^[22]

However, a person who has obtained leave to proceed as an indigent party under the Supreme Court Rules 2024 is exempt from the transmission fees prescribed under paragraph 15 and from providing security for costs and due prosecution under paragraph 16 of the Practice Directions.^[23]

Challenges Arising from the Practice Directions

1. Increased Financial Burden on Litigants: As noted above, the Practice Directions require an appellant, upon the transmission and uploading of the Record of Appeal, to pay a fee of ₦500,000 in addition to any amount assessed by the Registrar of the Court below for the compilation and transmission of the Record. A party requesting the transmission and uploading of additional copies of the Record of Appeal must similarly pay ₦250,000.^[24] These charges impose a significant additional financial burden on litigants seeking to pursue appeals before the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Practice Directions do not expressly state the administrative basis or purpose of the fees, raising legitimate concerns about their proportionality and potential impact on access to appellate justice.

This concern becomes more pronounced when considered alongside the financial obligations already incurred at the Court of Appeal stage. Under the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, the Registrar of the lower court is required to fix the amount to be deposited by the appellant to cover the estimated cost of preparing and forwarding the Record of Appeal.^[25] An appellant may therefore bear the cost of compiling and transmitting the Record to the Court of Appeal before becoming liable for the additional ₦500,000 fee upon transmission and uploading of the Record at the Supreme Court. In the absence of an express justification for the additional fee, questions inevitably arise as to whether it is intended to defray administrative costs, discourage unmeritorious appeals, or serve some other purpose. Whatever its underlying objective, the fee structure should not impose a disproportionate barrier to the exercise of rights of appeal conferred by the Constitution and applicable law or otherwise impede practical access to appellate justice.^[26]

The exemption available to indigent parties partly mitigates this concern. Paragraph 17 of the Practice Directions exempts a person who has obtained leave to proceed as an indigent party under Order 5 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 from the prescribed transmission fees.^[27] However, the exemption becomes operative only after the Court has granted the required leave. Consequently, an indigent appellant whose application remains pending may encounter practical difficulty in complying with the applicable transmission requirements. If the Court does not determine such an application promptly, the process of obtaining leave may delay the prosecution of the appeal and weaken the exemption’s protective purpose.

2. OCR Requirement and Electronic Filing: The Practice Directions require all electronic documents to be submitted in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR)-enabled PDF format, with the text fully searchable for accessibility and navigation.^[28] Although this requirement enhances the usability of electronically filed documents, compliance may present practical difficulties, particularly where a Record of Appeal consists substantially of scanned documents. Such records must undergo OCR processing to convert the scanned images into searchable text, and the accuracy of that conversion may be affected by the quality, age, legibility, or complexity of the source documents. Practitioners who lack appropriate OCR software or technical expertise may therefore have to rely on third-party applications or online platforms, potentially increasing compliance costs and raising concerns about the confidentiality and security of documents uploaded to external services.

Electronic filing also raises concerns about the consequences of technical failures affecting the NCMS platform. A party may be unable to file or upload a process within the prescribed period because of circumstances beyond that party’s control, including system outages or other technical disruptions. The Supreme Court Rules 2024 provide an important safeguard by suspending the computation of time for filing processes, performing prescribed acts, and paying default fees when an event disrupts the normal conduct of the Court’s business.^[29] However, neither the Practice Directions nor the Rules expressly define the circumstances in which an interruption to the electronic filing system will constitute such a disruptive event or prescribe a specific procedure for establishing that the portal was unavailable at the material time. Greater procedural clarity would therefore help ensure that litigants are not prejudiced by technical failures for which they are not responsible.

This concern is particularly significant because paragraph 18 of the Practice Directions, read together with the Second Schedule, introduces an additional default fee of ₦10,000 for each day a process remains unfiled beyond the prescribed period.^[30] Clear guidance on the treatment and verification of system outages would therefore promote certainty and ensure that the default-fee regime does not operate unfairly where non-compliance results from a demonstrable failure of the Court’s electronic filing infrastructure.

Conclusion

The introduction of mandatory electronic filing at the Supreme Court represents a significant step towards modernising the administration of justice in Nigeria. By facilitating electronic access to court processes and Records of Appeal, standardising filing requirements, and integrating the NCMS into appellate procedure, the Practice Directions could improve case management, reduce administrative delays, and enhance access to court records.

Nevertheless, the reform’s effectiveness will depend largely on its implementation. The additional financial obligations imposed on litigants, the technical requirements associated with OCR-enabled documents, and the need for greater clarity in addressing electronic filing disruptions demonstrate that adequate procedural safeguards and reliable technological infrastructure must accompany digitisation.

Parties and counsel must therefore familiarise themselves with the Practice Directions and develop the technical capacity necessary for effective compliance. At the same time, the Court should continue to review the operation of the electronic filing regime and provide clear guidance where practical difficulties or uncertainties emerge. In particular, measures that clarify the treatment of system outages, strengthen the reliability and accessibility of the NCMS platform, and minimise unnecessary barriers to compliance will help ensure that the reform achieves its underlying objectives.

Ultimately, the success of the Practice Directions will not be measured merely by the transition from physical to electronic filing, but by the extent to which that transition makes appellate justice more efficient, accessible, predictable, and responsive to the needs of litigants and the administration of justice.

Reference

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 236. ↑
2. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026. ↑
3. Ndidiamaka Ede, ‘Supreme Court asks lawyers to upload appeal documents under new electronic filing system’ (Premium Times, 14 July 2026) https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/895172-supreme-court-asks-lawyers-to-upload-appeal-documents-under-new-electronic-filing-system.html accessed 25 July 2026. ↑
4. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026, para 2. ↑
5. Ibid Para 8. ↑
6. Ibid Para 4 (2). ↑
7. Ibid Para 4 (3) ↑
8. Ibid Para 6(1). ↑
9. Ibid Para 6(2). ↑
10. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026, para 10(1) ↑
11. ibid para 10(2). ↑
12. ibid para 11. ↑
13. ibid para 9. ↑
14. ibid para 19(1). ↑
15. ibid para 19(2). ↑
16. ibid para 19(3). ↑
17. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026, para 12(1). ↑
18. Ibid. ↑
19. Ibid paras 12(1), 12(3)–(4). ↑
20. Ibid para 14. ↑
21. Ibid Para 15 (1). ↑
22. Ibid Para 15 (2). ↑
23. Ibid para 17; Supreme Court Rules 2024, Order 5 rule 3. ↑
24. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026, para 15(1)–(2 ↑
25. Court of Appeal Rules 2021, Order 8 Rules 2(b) and 11(1). ↑
26. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 36(1), 233. ↑
27. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026, para 17; Supreme Court Rules 2024, Order 5 Rule 3 ↑
28. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026, para 6(1). ↑
29. Supreme Court Rules 2024, Order 16 Rule 13. ↑
30. Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, and Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026, para 18 and Second Schedule ↑