LEGAL NUGGETS (31):PAYMENT OF FILING/LEGAL/COURT FEES.By Adedotun Habeeb Adetunji LL.M (M.IoD), FCAI.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, KATSINA STATE v. GTB & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44372(CA)

ISSUE
PAYMENT OF FILING/LEGAL/COURT FEES : Whether government departments/agencies are exempted from paying filing fees

PRINCIPLE
"The learned Senior State Counsel has cited the following rules: Order 48 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, which provides as follows: "The Judge may, as often as he deems fit and either before or after the expiration of the time appointed by these Rules or by any judgement or order of the Court, extend or adjourn the time for doing any act or taking any proceeding: Provided that any party who defaults in performing an act within the time authorized by the Judge or under these Rules shall pay to the Court an additional fee of N200.00 (Two hundred Naira) for each day of such default at the time of compliance." Order 55 Rule 1(2) Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 "1 - FEES; APPENDIX 2. (1) Subject to the provisions of any written law and of the foregoing orders the fees set out in Appendix 2 to these Rules shall be payable by any person commencing the respective proceedings or desiring the respective services for which they are specified in the Appendix. Exemptions (2) These fees are waived in respect of a party which is or represents a Government Ministry, non-Ministerial Departments, Federal, State and Local Government or any of their agencies." Also cited by the Senior State Counsel are the Practice Directions issued by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, dated 2nd May 2013, which provides thus: ".....Amendment: Order 48(4) shall read:- (4) The judge may, as often as he deems fit and either before or after the expiration of the time appointed by these Rules or by any Judgment or Order of the Court extend or adjourn the time for doing any act or taking any proceedings: Provided that any party who defaults in performing an act within the time authorized by the Judge or under these Rules shall pay to the Court an additional fee of N1,000 (One Thousand Naira) for each day of such default at the time of compliance. There shall be no waivers. All defaulting parties must pay the penalty fee as now prescribed." In construing Rules of Court, the law, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Britannia U (Nig) Ltd v Seplat Petroleum Development Co. Ltd (2016) 4 NWLR Part 1503 Page 541 at 594 Para E-G; (2016) All FWLR Part 826 Page 398 at 441 Para D-G per Ngwuta JSC, is that there is no need to resort to external sources. The words used in them ought to be given their grammatical and ordinary meanings. His Lordship in so holding, referred to the case of the Levy, ex parte, Wultin (1881) 17 Ch.D 746 at 751 where it was held, per Jessel M.R , as follows: "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the Words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical or ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further." Holding further, His Lordship Ngwuta JSC held: "Any modification of the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words and provisions reproduced above may lead to absurdity and inconsistency with the intention of the provisions." It is therefore important to give the words used in the said Rules their ordinary and grammatical meaning, except such as would lead to absurdity. The State's Counsel has argued that there is an inconsistency between the Rules and the Practice Directions and that the Rules should prevail. It is indeed the law that where there is a conflict between the Rules of Court and Practice Directions, the Rules of Court will prevail. See Adams v Umar (2009) 5 NWLR Part 1133 Page 41 at 106-107 Para H-D, per Sankey JCA; Obumseli v Uwakwe (2009) 8 NWLR Part 1142 Page 55 at 80 Para D-E per Tsamiya JCA. In the instant case, I however, do not see any conflict. By the combined interpretation of Order 48 Rule 1 and 2 Order 55 Rule 1(2) of the Federal High Court Rules 2009, giving the words their ordinary meaning, Government Ministries, non Ministerial Departments, Federal, State and Local Governments or any of their agencies, are exempted from paying filing fees. The Practice Directions however qualified the blanket waiver of filing fees given to these Ministries and departments, making it clear that this waiver only applies to payment for processes filed within time. Where there is a default in payment, the waiver, it is clear, does not apply. There is thus no requirement for this Court to have recourse to any external source in the interpretation of these Rules, I hold. In the case above, His Lordship, Ngwuta JSC on the status of Practice Directions, held: "Now "Direction" in the context of practice direction connotes command or precept emanating from an authority. See Buhari v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 459) 419 SC at 513 para F. Rules of Court include practice directions..." Underlining Mine Sankey JCA, following an expansive definition of the status of Practice Directions vis a vis the Rules of Court, concluded, in the case of Adams v Umar Supra: "Nevertheless, the Practice Directions, as a rule of Court, must be complied with and should not be circumvented, and so no favour should be shown for not obeying same." Underlining Mine. As held in Audu v Wada (2016) 12 NWLR Part 1527 Page 382 at 394 Para H per M.D. Muhammed JSC, a "Practice Direction is a special provision and must be given the effect it clearly sets out to achieve." Similarly, in Ugo v Ummuna (2008) 2 NWLR Part 1602 Page 102 at 125 Para D - E, it was held, per Kekere-Ekun JSC that they "have the force of law in the same way as rules of Court." Authorities cited by the Appellant's Counsel in respect of inadequate payment of filing fees being mere irregularities, are thus not apposite. The Practice Directions issued under the hand of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court on 2nd May 2013 shall thus be given their full effect, which effect renders invalid the processes filed by the Appellant. I see no reason to disagree with the decision of the lower Court striking out the processes filed by the Appellant." Per ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Pp. 29-34, Paras. D-E)