Access to Justice and the new front-loading system under our High Court Rules: A true perspective of witness statement on oath?
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
It is no gainsaying that one of the main reasons why many have lost faith in our justice system is the unusual delay and the resultant frustration. Cases have been reported as staying as long as twenty years or more before judgment is finally delivered. This has been a source of concern to everybody. The hues and cries about delay in justice administration are seen to be a major reason for the Lagos High Court in their Civil Procedure Rules which heralded the frontloading system in 20041. The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory2 and other States High Courts like Rivers State3, Enugu State4, and Anambra State5 have amended their Civil procedure rules providing for frontloading of court processes.
The rules do not provide for the status and form of a statement on oath. Is a statement on oath the same as affidavit evidence? Should it take the form of affidavit? Should non-compliance with the words in the Oaths Act be taken as defect as to form or substance especially where there is evidence that it was sworn before an authorised person? These are some of the knotty issues we intend to address in this work. Yet we still need to consider the aims and objectives of the frontloading system.
