A few hours ago, I received a text message that has stayed with me ever since. It was from the grandson of one of our clients informing me that his grandfather had passed away. This was a man who had spent over four years waiting for his case to be heard and determined by the court. He had placed his trust in the justice system, believing that at the end of the process, the law would pronounce itself clearly on whether the wrong he complained of would be recognised and addressed. He never received that answer in his lifetime. The case continues, but he will not be there to see its conclusion.
In 2022, shortly after completing my National Youth Service and around the period Metalex Legal was founded, the grandson reached out to us, seeking legal assistance for his grandfather. It became one of the earliest significant matters we handled as a young law firm. The elderly man owned a large expanse of farmland that had sustained his family for decades. It was not merely land in the abstract sense; it was their livelihood, supporting cash crop farming, fish ponds, and a rubber plantation that formed the foundation of their economic survival. According to the family, a neighbouring oil company operating adjacent facilities had, on several occasions, discharged petroleum and chemical waste into the surrounding environment. They alleged that this pollution contaminated their water source, destroyed fish in their ponds, damaged parts of their farmland, and led to the withering of crops that had once flourished.
As lawyers, we did not proceed on allegations alone. We engaged independent experts to assess the condition of the affected land and water before commencing proceedings. Once we were satisfied that there was a sufficient evidential basis, we filed the case and began what we believed would be a structured journey towards judicial resolution. At that time, there was a genuine belief that the courts would ultimately provide clarity and closure to a family that had suffered significant loss. What we did not anticipate was how prolonged that journey would become, not because of the complexity of the legal issues alone, but because of the pace at which the system itself operates.
Every lawyer understands that litigation takes time. Courts must hear both sides, examine evidence, and ensure that justice is done fairly. Delay, to a reasonable extent, is part of due process. However, there is a clear distinction between delay that is inherent in fair adjudication and delay that becomes the defining characteristic of the process itself. In this case, over the years that followed, progress was slow and often interrupted. There were repeated adjournments, long intervals between hearing dates, the elevation of the presiding judge to the Court of Appeal, and instances where the court could not sit, resulting in further dates being fixed months away.
By 2026, four years after the matter was instituted, there is still no substantive determination, and now the plaintiff has passed away. The case, however, remains before the court. That reality raises a difficult but necessary question: what does justice mean when it arrives after the person seeking it is no longer alive to receive it?
It is easy in legal practice to refer to parties as plaintiffs, claimants or defendants, or to reduce disputes to files and case numbers. Yet behind every file is a person whose life continues outside the courtroom. In our interactions, the client was never focused on abstract legal outcomes or financial recovery as the primary objective. What mattered to him was recognition. He believed in the court as the institution that provides closure when all other avenues have failed. That belief sustained him through years of waiting, even when progress was slow. Unfortunately, belief alone does not accelerate procedure.
Judicial delay is often discussed in general terms such as backlog, congestion, and administrative challenges. These descriptions are accurate but incomplete, because they do not fully capture the lived experience of those who are affected by it. Delay is not neutral in its impact. It affects parties differently depending on their resources, resilience, and circumstances. For well-resourced institutions, delay may be an inconvenience absorbed within operational structures. For individuals and families, it can represent prolonged uncertainty, financial strain, and in some cases, irreversible loss. An elderly farmer cannot pause life while waiting for litigation to conclude. A family dependent on land cannot rebuild their livelihood in the shadow of an unresolved dispute.
Over time, delay begins to influence the balance of justice itself. The party with greater financial and institutional capacity is often better positioned to withstand prolonged proceedings, while the weaker party bears the cumulative burden of waiting. This is where the concern shifts from efficiency to fairness. A justice system is not only assessed by the correctness of its outcomes, but also by its ability to deliver those outcomes within a timeframe that preserves their relevance.
It is important to state that this reflection is not directed at individual judges or court officials. The Nigerian judiciary operates under significant constraints, including heavy caseloads, limited infrastructure, and administrative burdens that affect efficiency. Lawyers, too, contribute at times to delay through procedural strategies and adjournment requests. The issue is therefore not individual failure but systemic structure. It is a structural challenge that requires structural responses, including improved case management systems, investment in judicial infrastructure, and procedural reforms that ensure matters progress with greater predictability.
Other jurisdictions facing similar challenges have introduced reforms aimed at reducing unnecessary delay without compromising fairness. These include active judicial case management, electronic filing systems, specialised divisions for complex matters, and stricter regulation of adjournments. The underlying principle is not speed for its own sake, but timeliness as an essential component of justice.
There is a well-known expression that the courts are the last hope of the common man. Yet hope becomes fragile when it is tied to timelines that stretch beyond what many litigants can reasonably endure. This raises a question that must be confronted honestly: at what point does delay begin to undermine the very justice it is meant to deliver?
Our client may never hear the judgment in the matter he pursued for years. However, his family continues in his absence. As lawyers, our duty remains to pursue the case with diligence and professionalism. But as a society, there is a broader obligation to examine whether the justice system is functioning in a way that serves those it was designed to protect.
Justice is not only about arriving at the correct conclusion. It is also about arriving in time for that conclusion to matter. When it does not, even the right decision risks becoming an incomplete form of justice.
