The Principle Against Suo Motu Extension of Time by the Courts

■ Introduction.

One of the cornerstones of the judicial process is fairness- a fairness that demands not only impartiality but also procedural discipline. In the quest to balance justice with judicial discretion, Nigerian courts have consistently reiterated that while they possess inherent jurisdiction to extend time in deserving circumstances, such discretion must not be exercised suo motu — that is, on the court’s own initiative without a formal application from the party seeking the indulgence.

This doctrine, firmly entrenched in Nigerian jurisprudence, was emphatically restated in Oko v. Aganyi (2016) ALL FWLR (Pt. 841) 1463 at 1472, paras D–E, where the Court of Appeal held that:
“It is a well-established doctrine that although a court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to a party in any given case, in the interest of justice, it should not do so suo motu, but upon the application of the defaulting party.”

■ The Meaning and Scope of Suo Motu Actions.
The term suo motu simply means “on its own motion.” A court acts suo motu when it raises or determines an issue that was not brought before it by either party. While the courts have an obligation to ensure justice and correct errors apparent on the record, they are not permitted to step into the arena of advocacy.
Judicial neutrality demands that courts refrain from taking up the role of counsel for any party. The adversarial system, which Nigeria adopts, prescribes that each party must present its case, and the judge merely adjudicates based on what has been placed before the court.

■ The Doctrine in Context: The Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction and Its Limits.
Every court of record possesses inherent jurisdiction to make orders that are necessary to achieve justice or prevent abuse of its process. However, this jurisdiction is not unbridled. It must be exercised within the framework of the law and with due regard to the rights of the parties.
In National Bank v. Are Brothers (1977) 11 SC 382 at 387, the Supreme Court, per Idigbe, J.S.C., underscored this limitation when it held that the court should not, on its own, extend the time for doing an act where no such request was made by the party entitled to seek that indulgence. The rationale is simple: the moment a court begins to grant reliefs not sought, it crosses from the realm of impartial arbiter into that of a party interested in the outcome.

■ Why Courts Cannot Extend Time Suo Motu.
The reasons underlying this principle are both procedural and philosophical:
1. Preservation of the Adversarial System:
In an adversarial system, the judge is an umpire, not a participant. By extending time without an application, the court essentially assists one side to correct a procedural lapse — thereby breaching the rule of neutrality.
2. Fair Hearing:
The right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) demands that parties must be heard before a decision affecting their rights is made. When a court acts suo motu without giving parties the opportunity to address it on the issue, it violates this constitutional safeguard.
3. Certainty and Predictability of Procedure:
Litigation thrives on procedural order. If courts could unilaterally extend time, the predictability of procedural rules — vital to the administration of justice — would collapse into judicial discretion exercised at whim.
4. Burden of Diligence:
The rules of court impose duties on litigants to act within specified timelines. Permitting courts to cure such defaults uninvited would encourage indolence and undermine procedural discipline.

■ Exceptions and the Interests of Justice.
It must be noted that while the general rule forbids suo motu intervention, a narrow exception exists: where a matter concerns jurisdiction, competence, or fundamental procedural defect, a court may raise the issue on its own motion, provided it affords parties an opportunity to address it before making a decision.
Even then, the extension of time itself cannot be made suo motu; the court can only draw attention to the default and invite an application if the party so desires.

■ Conclusion.
The beauty of the law lies not only in its power to dispense justice but also in the discipline of its process. Courts must be vigilant to ensure justice, but that vigilance must never translate into partiality.
The rule that a court should not extend time suo motu is therefore not a mere technicality — it is a safeguard of judicial impartiality, procedural fairness, and the constitutional right to fair hearing.