How is technology reshaping litigation in Nigerian courts today?
Technology is fundamentally changing how litigation is conducted in Nigerian courts. From virtual hearings to electronic evidence, from AI-assisted case preparation to digital case management systems, the structure and speed of dispute resolution are evolving.
In 2025–2026, the most visible changes are occurring in corporate and commercial litigation. This is because modern businesses operate digitally. Contracts are executed by email. Payments are made electronically. Communications happen over messaging platforms. As a result, disputes now revolve around digital footprints rather than physical documents.
Yet despite these technological shifts, the legal foundation remains rooted in statutory safeguards. Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) guarantees that a person is entitled to a “fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal established by law.” Technology must therefore serve justice, not compromise it.
The Key Litigation Trends in Nigerian Courts
Several clear patterns are emerging in Nigeria’s litigation landscape.
First, there is a steady increase in technology-driven disputes. These include fintech conflicts, failed digital transactions, data breaches, e-commerce disagreements, online lending claims, and intellectual property disputes involving digital content.
Second, commercial litigation is becoming more evidence-intensive. Courts now regularly deal with emails, accounting exports, WhatsApp chats, system logs, server records, and electronic payment histories.
Third, procedural efficiency is improving gradually through digital court administration tools. Some courts now operate electronic filing systems, digital cause lists, and virtual mention hearings.
Fourth, regulatory and compliance-related disputes are increasing. As Nigeria strengthens its regulatory environment in tax, data protection, financial services, and corporate governance, litigation naturally follows enforcement.
These trends show that litigation is no longer purely adversarial argument. It is increasingly technical, data-driven, and documentation-focused.
Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011
In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions set out in subsection (2) are satisfied.
Section 84(2):
The conditions referred to in subsection (1) are that:
(a) the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period when the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by any person, whether corporate or not;
(b) during that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) throughout the material part of that period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
Section 84(4):
In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate:
(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate;
and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, shall be evidence of the matters stated in the certificate.
Electronic Evidence and Section 84 of the Evidence Act
One of the most important legal provisions shaping modern litigation is Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011.
Section 84 governs the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. It provides that statements contained in documents produced by a computer shall be admissible only if certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions relate to how the computer was used, whether it was operating properly, and whether the information was regularly supplied to it in the ordinary course of activities.
In practical terms, this means that:
(a) Emails must be properly authenticated
(b) WhatsApp messages must be properly extracted and certified
(c) Bank statements generated electronically must be supported appropriately
(d) Digital logs must be linked to identifiable systems
Many corporate cases fail not because the claim is false, but because the digital evidence is improperly tendered.
For example, imagine a supplier sues a company for unpaid goods and relies on email confirmations and electronic invoices. If the supplier cannot satisfy the Section 84 requirements, the court may reject the documents, weakening the claim significantly.
In 2025–2026, strong litigators prepare electronic evidence compliance from the beginning of the case, not during cross-examination.
Virtual Hearings and the Right to Fair Hearing
Virtual hearings, which became common during the COVID-19 period, are now part of Nigeria’s litigation reality.
However, their legality rests on constitutional standards. Section 36 of the Constitution requires fairness and impartiality. A virtual proceeding must not deprive a party of the ability to present evidence, consult counsel, or participate effectively.
Where connectivity problems prevent proper participation, fairness concerns may arise. Courts are therefore expected to balance efficiency with constitutional protection.
The evolution of hybrid hearings reflects an attempt to achieve “hearing within a reasonable time” while maintaining procedural integrity.
Court Efficiency and Procedural Reforms
Some Nigerian courts have adopted modern civil procedure rules that encourage case management, time-bound filings, and alternative dispute resolution.
The objective aligns with the constitutional mandate for hearing within reasonable time.
Electronic filing systems reduce registry bottlenecks. Digital scheduling improves predictability. Remote hearings reduce adjournment caused by travel constraints.
While implementation varies across jurisdictions, the direction is clear. Nigerian litigation is gradually becoming more structured and technology-aware.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are virtual court hearings legal in Nigeria?
Yes, provided they comply with Section 36 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing. Virtual processes must not undermine the right to present evidence or participate meaningfully.
Can electronic documents be used in Nigerian courts?
Yes. Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs admissibility of computer-generated evidence. Proper certification and authentication are required.
Are WhatsApp messages admissible in court?
Yes, but only if properly authenticated and supported in compliance with Section 84 requirements.
How should businesses prepare for technology-driven litigation?
Businesses should:
(a) Maintain accurate digital records
(b) Preserve electronic communications
(c) Implement data protection compliance measures
(d) Review contracts for digital evidence and dispute clauses
(e) Seek legal guidance early when disputes arise
Conclusion
Litigation in Nigeria is evolving rapidly. Technology is influencing evidence, procedure, case preparation, and dispute patterns. Courts are adapting, lawyers are adjusting, and businesses must respond.
The foundation remains constitutional fairness and statutory compliance. However, success in modern litigation now depends on disciplined digital recordkeeping, technical evidence awareness, and proactive compliance structures.
0 Comments