Pam v. Mohammed [2008] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 1 at 83-84, paras. G-C, per Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory):

“A cause list in our jurisprudence is a list showing or indicating the cases to be taken by the court for the day. It includes the action to be taken in each case and counsel to do the cases. In respect of the action, the cause list clearly indicates whether the case is for mention, motion, hearing or judgment. A trial judge, or an appellate judge, must obey the cause list in the sense that he must not go outside the action to be taken in each case. Where a case is for hearing of motion, the trial judge must hear the motion and adjourn for any other process. On no account should he hear a motion and hear the merits of the matter, not to talk about delivering judgment. He may consider doing that in the very rare circumstance of consent by parties.  I should liken a cause list to an agenda of a meeting minus AOB, the cognomen for any other business, because cause list has no such business. The business of the court is exact and so exactly put in the list. The aim or objective of the cause list is to give notice in advance to the parties, the business of the day in respect of the case. It enables the parties and their counsel, if any, to prepare in advance. The parties should not be taken by surprise…”

Notes:

His Lordship in the above pronouncement indeed made fine observation.

In addition, it is important to note that of all the agenda of the Court as may be seen on the cause list, the one that should be sparingly used is the agenda, “For Mention”. When a matter is listed “For Mention”, it simply means that nothing absolutely important is scheduled to take place. Ordinarily, it is to be used to invite parties to court upon the filing of a fresh suit. On the slated date, the matter would simply be mentioned. The Court will listen to the parties for certain reports like report of service, and then set further agenda for a more serious business. Another similar agenda to this is matters adjourned for “Further Direction”.  Here, the parties appear unaware of how precisely to proceed. They therefore rely on the Court to give further directions.

These are some of the agendas that are being misused thereby contributing to the inordinate delays we witness today in the administration of justice. Courts are urged to focus on setting more serious agendas in the cause list and ensure that the relevant hearing notices are duly served on parties or their Counsel. To achieve this, a Judge must be a master of the case file to enable the Court comfortably dictate the pace. Where the Judge appears as lost as Counsel, the cases would keep dragging and several frivolous adjournments would hold sway. Trial Judges must be mindful of what his Lordship, Tobi JSC, said:

“A trial Judge has not the unfettered discretion in the adjournment of matters. He must exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously. An appellate court will intervene if he does not exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously.”

Another interesting remark made by the Supreme Court regarding the exercise of discretion is that the trial Judge must endeavour to give reasons for grant or refusal of adjournment application. Hear Tobi, JSC:

“Although a trial Judge has the judicial discretion either to grant or refuse an application for adjournment, he must, however, consider the application carefully, that is judicially and judiciously on its merits, and states his reasons for his decision to grant or refuse it.

In the instant case, the Learned trial Judge refused an application for stand down and failed to give reason. It was held that the approach was wrong. Tobi, JSC stated:

“In this appeal, the learned trial Judge did not give any reason for refusing the application of Counsel for the 1st Appellant to stand down the case till 3.00 pm. Again, he kept the reason to himself. The law does not allow him to keep the reason to himself.”