Will NJC sanctions curb delay of judgments after 90 days?

Others rush judgment writing at the expense of depth and analytical clarity. In either case, justice suffers.

He argued that there is nothing sacrosanct about 90 days.

The SAN said: “In some other jurisdictions, some judgments are delivered well over six months after the final addresses or closing arguments of counsel were taken.

“Cases come in their complexities and diversity. A judge might need to consult some scientific or technical reports to be able to make sense of the myriad of evidence placed before him, and for which 90 days might be insufficient.”

Chief Taiwo believes judges, especially in the busy jurisdictions like Lagos and Abuja, are overworked and need support.

“We need more judges, and each of the judges needs more capable research assistants who can study case files and help judges in sifting relevant from the irrelevant processes to aid in doing the judges’ work faster.

“Judges should also leverage technology: electronic recording equipment and scheduling tools to manage court sittings. Above all, the work of judges is more intellectual than mechanical.

“The appointment of judges should be solely on merit, and those who aspire for the bench must be ready to bear the sacrifices of the job.”

Is the 30-day rule absolute?

A central question in the debate is whether the 90-day period should be treated as sacrosanct. Nigerian appellate courts have answered this in the negative.

In a long line of authorities, including Dennis Akoma v. Osenwokwu and Onwuakpa v. Onyeama, the Supreme Court has held that a judgment delivered outside ninety days remains valid unless the complaining party demonstrates that the delay occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

This position is now constitutionally reinforced by Section 294(5), which expressly prohibits the setting aside of a decision solely on the ground of non-compliance with subsection (1).

The judiciary has thus embraced a pragmatic approach, balancing procedural discipline with substantive justice.

In complex commercial, scientific, or constitutional cases, extended deliberation may be necessary to ensure accuracy and coherence. The danger lies not in justified delay, but in habitual or unexplained tardiness.

Public confidence and the cost of delay

Mrs Gloria Egbuji, Executive Director of the Crime Victims Foundation of Nigeria (CRIVIFON), warns that frequent delays erode public trust in the justice system.

For litigants, especially victims of crime or commercial disputes, delayed judgments translate into prolonged uncertainty, financial loss, and emotional distress.

She argues that while judicial independence must be protected, it cannot be invoked as a shield against constitutional accountability.

Where no reasonable explanation exists, firm but fair sanctions are necessary to preserve institutional credibility, she said.

To better enforce and monitor judgment timelines, the CRIVIFON Executive Director suggested that there must be more structured oversight beyond post facto sanctions.

She said heads of court should actively monitor judgment deadlines through proper case-tracking mechanisms.

“Simple digital or administrative tracking systems can be put in place to flag when a matter is approaching or has exceeded the constitutional time limit.

“Regular compliance reports can also be submitted to the NJC, making it easier to identify recurring defaults early rather than after complaints have arisen”, she said.

Mrs Egbuji said in addition that clearer guidance and interpretation is needed on what truly constitutes “exceptional circumstances.”

She said leaving this too vague creates room for abuse and inconsistency.

She said that where no reasonable explanation exists, accountability must be firm but fair, as judicial independence should not be mistaken for immunity from constitutional obligations.

Mrs Egbuji canvassed reforms to speed up justice delivery going forward, especially from 2026 and beyond.

She said: “Attention must be paid to the working conditions of judges.

“Many judges are simply overwhelmed by excessive caseloads and even poor or no modern equipment to assist them.

“Better distribution of cases, increased appointment of judges where necessary, and specialisation of courts and divisions will go a long way in reducing delays,” she said.

She also suggested that stronger institutional support for judges, including adequate research assistants, registrars, and clerical staff, can significantly reduce the burden of routine work and allow judges to focus on writing judgments promptly.

She also suggests that increased use of technology, such as electronic filing, digitised court records, and access to online law reports, will also eliminate many of the avoidable delays caused by manual processes.

Mrs. Egbuji suggested that stricter case management and wider use of alternative dispute resolution should be encouraged to reduce the volume of cases that proceed to full trial unnecessarily.

She stated, for example, that where couples decide to get a divorce, there was no need to delay the case on for three or four years, even where nothing is in contention.

“Justice delayed is justice denied, and timely judgment delivery is not a favour to litigants but a constitutional duty,” she said.

She believed that sustained monitoring, proper support for judges, and practical reforms are essential if confidence in the justice system is to be restored and  maintained going forward.

Election tribunals and judicial disruption

Former Commissioner, Ogun State Judiciary Service Commission, Abayomi Omoyinmi, highlights a structural anomaly: the routine deployment of serving judges to election petition tribunals.

While constitutionally sanctioned, these assignments often disrupt pending dockets, leaving reserved judgments unattended for months.

He suggests reconsideration of this practice or, at a minimum, structural safeguards to ensure that judges assigned to tribunals conclude pending judgments beforehand.

Without such measures, he said, constitutional timelines become casualties of electoral exigency.

Omoyinmi argued that Section 294(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended, mandates judges to pronounce judgment within 90 days of final arguments.

He noted that the difficulty in enforcing and monitoring judgment delivery time lines may not be accomplished without addressing issues of congestion of cases in court for Judges to deal with, the introduction of technology to assist judges in their daily assignments, e.g., the use of stenographers/ recording machines for proceedings in court, and equipping judges’ libraries.

He advised the government to look into the possibility of not assigning the serving judges to the election petition tribunal.

“Such official assignments further delay sometimes judgment delivery within the time prescribed by the constitution in some cases,” he said.

According to him, judges who are sent to handle election matters, who may have adjourned their cases for judgment before the assignment, may not be able to deliver judgment until when he or she is back, which could take up to six months.

In that case, he argued that the authority and power of a court to deliver judgment or take any other judicial step in a case would have been automatically taken away.

Omoyinmi posited that as long as such a judgment delivered after 90 days does not occasion a miscarriage of justice and where valid reasons were ascribed for the delay, the judgment will pass the test of time, notwithstanding that it was delivered after 90 days.

‘There must be finality to proceedings’

Activist Moruf Balogun said there must be finality to proceedings in every court of competent jurisdiction.

This finality, he said, is achieved through the delivery of judgment, which conclusively determines the rights and liabilities of the parties.

He said in accordance with Section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it is expected that a court delivers its final decision or judgment within 90 days after the conclusion of evidence and the adoption of final written addresses.

“The Supreme Court emphasised this principle in S.P.D.C.N v. Ekwems (2023) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1874) 222, where it held that every court established under the Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than 90 days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses, and furnish all parties with duly authenticated copies within seven days of delivery.

“The NJC’s stance on the 90-day judgment rule appears approbative and reprobative. While it routinely cautions judges for failing to deliver judgments within the prescribed period, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the word “shall” in Section 294(1) is not always mandatory; it may be mandatory, permissive, or directory depending on the circumstances.

“In cases such as DENNIS AKOMA & ANOR V. OBI OSENWOKWU & ORS. (2014) JELR 39862 (SC) Supreme Court SC.102/2005, the Court affirmed that a judgment delivered outside ninety days is valid unless it causes a miscarriage of justice.

“By emphasising sanctions without acknowledging this judicial nuance, the NJC projects an inconsistent position disciplining judges for delays that the courts may judicially excuse thus creating uncertainty for both judges and litigants”

Notwithstanding this established legal position, Balogun posited that the introduction of Section 294(5) into the 1999 Constitution provides that a decision shall not be set aside solely for non-compliance with subsection (1) unless the court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice.

Citing Onwuakpa v. Onyeama (2022) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1858) 11, where the Supreme Court clarified that, Balogun argued that for a judgment to be declared invalid, the appellant must go beyond establishing a mere breach of Section 294(1) and demonstrate that the non-compliance occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Balogun said the caution issued by the NJC underscores a recurring institutional challenge within Nigeria’s justice system: compliance with the constitutional timeline for judgment delivery under Section 294(1). While the provision is clear and well-intentioned, enforcement and monitoring mechanisms have not always been sufficiently robust.

He suggested that judgment delivery timelines can be better enforced and monitored through a combination of administrative, technological, and accountability-based measures:

He added: “There is an urgent need for a nationwide, judiciary-wide digital case management system that automatically tracks key procedural milestones, including the date of adoption of final addresses and the constitutional ninety-day deadline.

“Such systems should generate alerts for judges, court registrars, heads of courts, and judicial inspectors as deadlines approach or are exceeded.

“Chief judges and heads of courts should be institutionally mandated to receive periodic compliance reports on pending judgments within their jurisdictions. This would allow early intervention before constitutional breaches occur, rather than relying solely on post-facto sanctions.

“Courts should submit quarterly compliance returns to the NJC on reserved judgments, rather than waiting for petitions or inspections. This proactive reporting framework shifts enforcement from reactive to preventive.

“While sanctions remain necessary, a graduated system ranging from caution to suspension of promotion consideration should be clearly codified. Conversely, consistent compliance could be positively reinforced through recognition in performance evaluations.

“From the standpoint of an experienced practitioner, speeding up justice delivery requires reforms that enhance judicial efficiency without compromising the quality of adjudication.”

Reduction of judicial workload

Balogun said: “One of the primary causes of delayed judgments is excessive caseloads. The appointment of more judges, particularly at the trial court level, and the rational redistribution of cases are essential.

“Specialised courts and divisions should also be expanded to reduce cognitive and administrative overload.”

Judicial research and clerking support

Balogun advised that judges should be supported with well-trained judicial researchers and law clerks. He argued that proper research assistance significantly reduces the time required to write reasoned judgments, especially in complex commercial, constitutional, and appellate matters.

Digitalisation of court processes

“Beyond e-filing, courts must embrace end-to-end digital processes: electronic records, virtual hearings where appropriate, digital transcription, and AI-assisted legal research tools.

“These reforms directly reduce delays attributable to administrative inefficiencies,” Balogun said.

Continuous judicial training

Regular training on judgment writing, time management, and the use of technology should be institutionalised through the National Judicial Institute (NJI), he said.

Emphasis should be placed on modern adjudicatory techniques suitable for high-volume dockets.

Stricter case management

Balogun said judges should be encouraged and procedurally empowered to adopt stricter case management practices, limit unnecessary adjournments, and discourage dilatory tactics by counsel. Procedural rules must support judicial assertiveness in this regard.

Balogun said timely delivery of judgments is not merely a constitutional obligation; it is central to public confidence in the judiciary and the broader rule of law. While individual accountability is important, systemic reform is indispensable.

He said the NJC’s continued oversight, combined with technological innovation, administrative discipline, and adequate judicial support, will be critical to ensuring that justice in Nigeria is not only done but done timeously.

Limits of sanctions and the case for monitoring

A recurring theme among commentators is that post-facto discipline alone is insufficient.

What is required, they argue, is proactive monitoring.

Digital case-tracking systems could flag approaching deadlines, enabling heads of courts to intervene before breaches occur.

Mandatory quarterly compliance reports to the NJC would shift enforcement from reactive to preventive.

Such administrative reforms, if implemented nationwide, could transform judgment delivery from an individual burden into an institutional priority.

Ultimately, timely justice is not a concession to litigants but a constitutional duty owed to society.

The challenge before Nigeria’s judiciary is to honour that duty without sacrificing the quality and integrity of adjudication upon which the rule of law depends.