A Review Of The Supreme Court Electronic Filing Practice Directions, 2026: Challenges And Prospects

Introduction

On June 30, 2026, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Lordship, Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, GCON signed the Supreme Court (Mandatory Upload of Electronic Copies of Processes, Record of Appeal, And Other Matters) Practice Directions, 2026 (the “Practice Directions”). The Practice Directions, which took effect on July 1, 2026, introduced some new provisions aimed at facilitating justice delivery.

This article highlights the key provisions of the Practice Directions while exploring the practical concerns arising from their immediate implementation.

Key Provisions

1. Applicability

The Practice Directions apply to all cases at the Supreme Court whether pending or initiated after the commencement of the Practice Directions.¹ This means that the Practice Directions will apply to all matters that have not been disposed at the Supreme Court as of today.

2. Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies

Parties or their counsel are now required to submit electronic copies of records of appeal and filed processes.² In pending matters i.e. matters commenced before July 1, 2026, a party must upload both the processes it has filed, and the processes served on it by the other parties. However, for matters commenced after July 1, 2026, a party only needs to upload the processes it filed.

3. Timeline for Submission

Electronic copies or records and other processes must now be submitted not later than thirty (30) days before the hearing of the case.³ The Practice Directions also require hard copies of the electronic documents to follow at the registry within seven (7) days or 48 hours before the hearing, whichever comes first.⁴ No case will be scheduled for hearing once this deadline has passed unless every filed process has been submitted in accordance with the Practice Directions.⁵

4. Direct Compilation of Records of Appeal

An Appellant now has the option to compile and transmit the Record of Appeal directly to the Supreme Court, rather than await compilation by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.⁶ This represents a significant shift from the previous practice under Order 6 Rule ⁷ of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024 (the “Rules”), where the appellant routinely had to wait for the mandatory 30 day registry compilation window to expire before acquiring the right to independently compile and transmit the record.

5. Electronic Compilation of Records of Appeal

Where an Appellant compiles the Record of Appeal as highlighted above, paragraph 13 of the Practice Direction, requires that an OCR-enabled, fully searchable electronic copy be uploaded onto the Nigeria Case Management System (“NCMS”), with the Appeal Number generated by the NCMS clearly inscribed on all physical copies subsequently transmitted to the Supreme Court. The NCMS is accessible at https://efiling.courts.gov.ng/ 

6. Additional Fee for Records of Appeal

The Practice Directions introduce new fees payable in addition to whatever the Registrar of the lower court assesses for compilation and transmission of records.7 The fees are (i) ₦500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) for transmission and uploading of the Record of Appeal; and (ii) ₦250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) for any additional records transmitted. The fees are subject to variation by the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

7. Amendment of Default Fees

A new default fee element has now been introduced under the Second Schedule of the Practice Direction, payable in addition to the fees already set out in the Second Schedule of the Rules.⁸ The Second Schedule adds item 14A to the fee table providing for ₦10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) as default fee for failure to file any process within the prescribed period.

8. Formatting of Processes

Paragraph 19 prescribes new mandatory formatting standards for every process filed before the Supreme Court. Every process must be typed with 2.54-centimetre margins on all sides, prepared on A4-size paper, legible and well-bound, and typed in Arial, Times New Roman, or Tahoma at 14 point font with at least 1.5 line spacing.

The sanction for non-compliance is strict, because a process that does not comply will not be accepted for filing on the NCMS or at the physical registry, and where it is mistakenly accepted, it will not be deemed properly filed.

Challenges

The above provisions of the Practice Direction are commendable. However, despite the benefits they portend for justice delivery, we note some practical challenges in their implementation.

OCR Quality

The first challenge is in respect of the Optical Character Recognition (OCR”) quality required by paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction. As a practical matter, to create an electronic copy of a record of appeal, most of the documents filed at the lower courts would be scanned. OCR generally does not apply to scanned documents, except it is specifically enabled using online tools or software designed for that purpose.

This process presents distinct hurdles. First, the software frequently disrupts the text and formatting of the document, creating potential discrepancies with the printed record. Second, some of these documents are not clear enough to support an accurate OCR conversion.

Finally, achieving OCR compliance often requires uploading documents into external online portals or websites that offer OCR services, before they are converted. This introduces severe data protection concerns, as there is no gatekeeper to regulate how these external service providers handle, store, or utilize sensitive client data uploaded on their portals.

E Filing

All electronic copies of documents now need to be filed through the Supreme Court’s portal designated for that purpose⁹. However, given the frequent occurrences of portal downtime in Nigeria, it remains unclear whether technical disruptions will be factored into calculating whether a party is in default. This operational ambiguity is particularly worth considering because the financial penalty for failing to file a process within the prescribed period has been steeply increased from ₦5,000 to ₦10,000 per day.¹⁰ 

Additional Fees for Transmission

The additional fee of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) mandated by paragraph 15 of the Practice Directions is particularly concerning. The underlying administrative justification for introducing such a substantial cost remains entirely opaque. It plainly does not constitute a fee for the compilation or transmission of the record of appeal, as that function is already billed by and paid to the Court of Appeal. Neither is it structured as a refundable deposit to guarantee diligent prosecution.

Because the Practice Directions introduce no new operational or administrative requirements regarding the transmission of records to warrant this ₦500,000.00 charge, its purpose remains completely unstated. This raises fundamental questions as to whether the fee is merely a revenue generation mechanism or an intentional strategic hurdle designed to discourage frivolous appeals and suppress the volume of appeals reaching the apex court. Regardless of its underlying intent, the provision imposes an unprecedented and inequitable financial burden on litigants, severely undermining the constitutional right of access to justice.

Although by paragraph 17 of the Practice Directions, indigent persons are exempted from this provision, one still requires leave under Order 5 Rule 3 of the Rules to proceed as an indigent/poor person. Because this leave must be granted before the ₦500,000.00 requirement can be waived, an indigent appellant cannot safely transmit the record of appeal while their application is pending. Consequently, this creates a severe procedural bottleneck. Applications for leave at the Supreme Court are notoriously subject to protracted delays due to the court's congested docket. Furthermore, a truly indigent litigant whose application is ultimately refused faces an insuperable financial barrier, effectively extinguishing their constitutional right to appeal.

Also, It is not clear from the Practice Directions whether appellants in capital offences or those who have been granted legal aid are excluded from this requirement. Crucially, under Order 5 Rule 7 of the Rules, these specific categories of litigants are explicitly exempted from paying court fees. Given that Practice Directions function as administrative extensions of the Rules and cannot implicitly override them, the absence of an express revocation means Order 5 Rule 7 should remain fully operational. Consequently, this Order 5 Rule 7 of the Rules should still apply to exempt appellants in capital offences and legal aid cases from the newly introduced ₦500,000 transmission fee.

Lack of Transition Period

We also note that the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria signed the Practice Directions on June 30, 2026, and same took effect the next day, July 1, 2026. Consequently, legal practitioners and litigants were afforded virtually no transition period to adjust to the new regulatory landscape.

Under the parliamentary doctrine of vacatio legis which is recognized in most common law jurisdictions, legislative changes should ordinarily be accompanied by a reasonable transitional period. This grace period enables those affected to adjust their affairs before the changes take effect, thereby safeguarding legal certainty, fairness and legitimate expectations. It also allows for essential institutional sensitization to educate litigants on the mechanics of the new directives. However, that is not the case here since the Practice Direction took effect almost immediately. Although this does not in any way affect its validity as law, it severely undermines the legitimate expectation of legal practitioners, litigant, and other interested persons, who are now forced to adjust to the changes midstream.

Conclusion

The Practice Direction has been enacted and has force of law as a subsidiary legislation. Notwithstanding the transitional hurdles, this digital migration represents a highly welcome development, particularly regarding the mandatory electronic uploading of records and court processes. Legal Practitioners, litigants and court officials are therefore advised to take proactive steps to ensure strict compliance with these new operational mandates. Ultimately, it is hoped that these structural reforms will foster a more efficient, seamless, and expeditious delivery of justice at the Supreme Court.

Footnotes

1 Para. 2 of the Practice Directions

2 Ibid. Para. 4

3 Ibid. Para. 10(1).

4 Ibid. Para. 10(2)

5 Ibid Para. 11.

6 Ibid. Para. 12

7 Ibid. Para 15.

8 Ibid. Para. 18.

9 Ibid. Para. 8

10 See Second Schedule of the Practice Directions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.