Federal High Court Tightens Rules, Redefines Pre-Election Case Procedures Nationwide

The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, has issued new Practice Directions governing the hearing of pre-election cases, introducing stricter timelines for filings and proceedings, while ordering court registries nationwide to open on weekends and public holidays for the filing of election-related matters.

The new framework, titled the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2026 takes effect from June 29, 2026, replacing the 2022 guidelines and aligning court procedures with the Electoral Act, 2026, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The guidelines, which were signed on June 26, were made pursuant to Sections 254 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.

Weekend Access for Urgent Election Filings

A key highlight of the new rules is the directive that registries of all Federal High Court judicial divisions across the country must remain open on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays between 10 a.m and 2 p.m, strictly for the filing of pre-election cases.

The court said the measure is intended to prevent delays that could affect constitutionally prescribed timelines for determining electoral disputes.

“In cognisance of pre-election cases being time-sensitive in nature, the Registry of this Honourable Court in all the Judicial Divisions in the Federation shall be open on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays… exclusively for the filing of pre-election matters,” the document stated.

Originating Summons Now Mandatory

Under the new framework, all pre-election matters must now be commenced by originating summons, relying primarily on affidavit evidence rather than oral testimony.

Where allegations of fraud, forgery or other highly contentious issues arise, parties are required to provide detailed particulars, with courts empowered to take oral or documentary evidence where necessary to resolve disputes.

Applicants must also file supporting affidavits, exhibits, written addresses and a declaration confirming that no similar case has been filed elsewhere.

Tight Timelines for Respondents and Applicants

The Practice Directions significantly compress timelines for the exchange of legal processes.

Respondents are required to enter appearance within seven days of being served and file counter-affidavits and written addresses within 10 days. Applicants may file replies within three days after receiving responses.

Written addresses must be double-spaced, use 12-point font and must not exceed 15 pages, as part of efforts to promote concise advocacy and speed up adjudication.

Limited Adjournments and Faster Hearings

To reduce delays, the court has restricted adjournments in pre-election cases, stating that no party is entitled to more than two adjournments during proceedings.

Requests for adjournment will not be entertained on hearing dates, while changes in legal representation will not automatically justify repeated delays.

Where necessary, lawyers may be substituted or proceedings may continue virtually if practicable.

The court also directed that cases be assigned and scheduled for hearing within seven days after completion of filings, with pre-election matters to be given priority until judgment is delivered.

Virtual Hearings and Electronic Communication

The new rules expand the use of technology in electoral litigation. Courts are now permitted to conduct proceedings virtually where appropriate, while urgent notices may be issued via email or electronic platforms.

Lawyers and litigants are required to provide valid phone numbers and email addresses to facilitate communication with court registries.

Notices for urgent hearings must be issued at least 48 hours in advance.

Consolidation of Parties in Election Disputes

The Practice Directions also reinforce the requirement that all necessary parties must be joined in pre-election disputes, particularly in cases challenging party primaries.

“A party challenging the conduct or outcome of a primary election shall join as respondents all relevant parties to enable the court to effectively determine the dispute,” it stated.

The Chief Judge retains the authority to assign judges across judicial divisions or transfer cases where necessary to ensure efficient adjudication.

Stronger Case Management and Constitutional Alignment

The court directed judges to strictly adhere to constitutional and statutory timelines governing election disputes, while interlocutory applications, including jurisdictional objections, will generally be heard alongside substantive suits.

Only objections relating to service of processes may be treated separately.

The new rules also apply to cases filed after their commencement, while ongoing matters will continue under existing directions, subject to necessary adjustments.

Electoral Reform Context

The updated Practice Directions come as part of broader electoral reforms ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The Electoral Act, 2026 introduces changes including digital party membership registers, statutory recognition of BVAS, revised campaign spending limits, and reforms aimed at reducing internal party disputes.

However, some provisions, particularly those relating to judicial intervention in internal party affairs have sparked legal debate among practitioners, with questions expected to be tested in court in the coming months.