Adjournment

The reasons courts hear are recognisable.

Counsel unavailable, frequently because of a conflicting engagement in another court.

A witness not in attendance.

Documents not ready, or processes not served in time.

Settlement discussions ongoing, with the parties asking for time.

A party seeking to file a further application, which then requires its own hearing.

And administrative reasons: the judge on assignment, the court not sitting, the file not before the court.

For a litigant trying to move a case, the practical responses are limited but real.

Oppose adjournments and ask for costs when they are sought without good reason. A pattern of costs orders makes the tactic less attractive.

Ensure your own side is never the cause. Witnesses briefed and available, documents filed, counsel not double booked.

Ask for a definite date rather than an open adjournment, and for the case to be given a fixed hearing where the rules allow.

And consider whether the forum is right. A small claims court or arbitration exists precisely because ordinary litigation moves at this pace.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 was a direct legislative response to adjournment culture in criminal cases.

It requires that a criminal trial proceed from day to day as far as practicable, and it limits the number of adjournments that may be granted at the instance of a party, providing that where a party has exhausted the permitted adjournments the court is to proceed. It also provides for costs where an adjournment is sought.

That framework has changed practice in criminal matters, though implementation varies between courts.

On the civil side, the rules of court and practice directions in various states have taken a similar direction, emphasising front loading of evidence, timelines for filing, and the court's control of its own list.

The front loading requirement is itself an anti delay measure. Where the statement of claim, the witness statements on oath and the documents are all filed at the outset, there is less scope for adjournments to prepare evidence that should already exist.

For a commercial party, the practical conclusion is that forum choice matters more than anything that can be done inside a case. Arbitration under an agreed clause, the small claims court where the amount qualifies, or a negotiated settlement will each usually resolve a dispute faster than ordinary litigation, and the difference is measured in years rather than months.

Where litigation is unavoidable, keeping your own house in order and consistently opposing unmeritorious adjournments with an application for costs is what a litigant can control.

Three ways a case stops moving, temporarily or permanently.

An adjournment postpones a hearing to another date. The case continues; it simply happens later.

A stay of proceedings halts the action, usually pending something else: an appeal on a preliminary point, a reference to arbitration, or the resolution of a related matter. The case is suspended rather than merely rescheduled.

A strike out ends the case, on a ground such as want of jurisdiction, no reasonable cause of action, want of prosecution or a procedural default. It is not a decision on the merits, and depending on the ground the claim may be capable of being brought again.

A claimant experiencing repeated adjournments should be alert to the risk of the third: a case that is not being actively prosecuted can be struck out for want of prosecution, which turns delay into dismissal.

Adjournments are frequently unavoidable, and a court refusing one where a party genuinely needs time creates its own injustice.

Costs orders are modest in Nigeria, so they deter less than they should.

Court lists, judicial workload and infrastructure produce administrative adjournments no party can control.

And the party benefiting from delay has no incentive to cooperate, which is why the rules rather than the parties have to constrain it.