NIGERIAN COURTS SHERIFFS AND BAILIFFS AND THE ACCOMPANYING RISKS IN THE PERFORMANCES OF THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES: A CALL FOR POLICY CHANGE TO PROMOTE EFFICIENT JUSTICE DELIVERY
By: Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, Esq.
ACArb. (Chartered Arbitrator), MTI Accredited Mediator, CGArb. (Global Peace and Conflict Resolution and Management Expert), FIGPCM, LPC, PC-WCM, FIMC, CMC, CMS and Notary Public for Nigeria
The duties of Sheriffs of Courts in Nigeria including Bailiffs are no doubt statutory duties. These duties, notwithstanding their statutory provisions, are not without their risks which endanger efficient justice delivery. These Sheriffs, by law (as will be seen in the preceding paragraphs), have the powers to appoint Bailiffs of Courts to assist in their functions. These Bailiffs have been facing various risks and challenges in the discharge of their statutory duties (and the Sheriffs too). In this paper, I have itemized some of these risks and challenges with a recommendation for an immediate policy change that would improve those itemized risks and challenges and promote efficient justice delivery in our courts by the Bailiffs. Hence, this topic.
According to the AI definition, which is not contradictory to the meanings that I found in the Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘Sheriff of court, as defined in legal contexts like Black’s Law Dictionary, is a county’s chief executive and administrative officer, typically elected by the populace. They are responsible for a range of duties including law enforcement, maintaining the jail, and executing court orders’. See: Black’s Law Dictionary, page: 1543. In the executive and administrative role, the Sheriff is the highest-ranking law enforcement official in a county, responsible for the overall administration of justice within their jurisdiction. Also, in regard to law enforcement, the Sheriffs and their deputies have the authority to enforce laws, make arrests, and investigate crimes. In regard to court related duties, they are responsible for maintaining order in the courtroom, transporting prisoners, and executing court orders like evictions and property seizures. In regard to jail operations, in many jurisdictions, Sheriffs oversee the county jail and are responsible for the care and custody of inmates. In the United States, Sheriffs are typically elected by the voters in their county, making them accountable to the public. It is observable that the specific duties and powers of a Sheriff can vary depending on state and local laws. In Nigeria, this office is occupied and termed as ‘Chief Registrar’ of the Court and a ‘Deputy- Sheriff’ is termed as Deputy Chief-Registrar of the Court. But a ‘Bailiff of Court’ is not a Sheriff under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004, but an appointee by the Sheriffs to assist in the performance of the functions of the Sheriffs, hence, Bailiff are officers of Courts.
As I stated earlier in the above paragraph of this paper, the duties of the Sheriffs and the Bailiffs are statutory duties. Section 3,4 and 5 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004, provides thus
‘3. There shall be appointed for each State of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, a fit and proper person to be the Sheriff for the State or for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
4. There shall be appointed for each State of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, a fit and proper person to be the Deputy Sheriff who shall be subject to the general control and direction of the Sheriff.
5. The sheriffs may appoint such number of persons as bailiffs as may be necessary.’ Underlining is mine for emphasis.
Furthermore, Sections: 7 to 15 of the said Act respectively provides for the ‘Powers, Duties and Liabilities of Sheriff, Deputy Sheriffs, Bailiffs and Police Officers’, where the Act provides thus
7. The sheriff may command any person to arrest any person who has committed or is suspected of having committed a felony, and any person failing to obey such command shall on conviction be liable to a fine of two hundred naira or to imprisonment for one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
8. The sheriff shall receive writs and process of a court issued in accordance with this Act and shall be charged with making returns thereto.
9. At the sessions the sheriff shall direct a sufficient number of police constables to be employed to keep order in and within the precincts of the court.
10. The sheriff at the request of a person delivering a writ to him for execution shall give a receipt for that writ stating the hour and the day of its delivery.
11. The sheriff shall perform any other duty or duties as may be imposed upon him by any written law.
12. Where sentence of death has been pronounced upon any person and the President or Governor, as the case may be, has ordered that the sentence shall be carried into execution, the same shall be carried into execution by the sheriff or a deputy sheriff or by some person appointed by the sheriff or deputy sheriff:
Provided that if it appears to the President in the case of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or to the Governor in charge of a State that the attendance of the sheriff or a deputy sheriff at the place at which the execution is to be carried out cannot be obtained without undue delay or inconvenience, the President or Governor may detail any other officer in the Territory or in the State, as the case may be, to perform the duties of the sheriff in relation to such execution.
13. Every deputy sheriff may be charged generally with the duties of performance of the sheriff and shall be subject to the same liabilities and protection as the sheriff.
14. A person unlawfully imprisoned by the sheriff, deputy sheriff or any bailiff appointed by the sheriff shall have an action against such sheriff, deputy sheriff or bailiff, as the case may be, in like manner as against any other person that should imprison him without warrant.
15. It shall be the duty of every police officer to assist in the execution of process of the court.’
Worthy of note, Section 94 of the Act has given the powers to make Rules on the Act (including the Sheriffs and the Bailiffs) to the ‘Chief Judge’ of the respective courts, where it provides that
‘94. The Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, with the approval of the President, and the Chief Judge of a State, with the approval of the Governor, may make rules of court in respect of any or all of the following matters:-
(a) the duties of bailiffs;
(b) the procedure to be adopted by bailiffs and others on the receipt of money paid or received at a sale on execution or otherwise in respect of process of execution and the accounting therefore;
(c) the fees and allowances, if any, to be paid to, or for the use of the services of bailiffs and other officers of the court;
(d) the fees to be paid in respect of any application or the filing of any document or in respect of anything done or furnished under this evidence;
(e) the conditions precedent to the issue of any process;
(f) the issue of process to or against any person or class of persons;
(g) anything to be done by any person in respect of the issue or execution of process;
(h) the method of attaching any property;
(i) the enforcement of judgments not for the payment of money;
(j) the procedure in execution against immovable property;
(k) the entertainment and adjudication of claims to property attached or sold in execution;
(l) the custody or disposal of property attached; (m) the appointment of managers or receivers over attached or sequestrated property;
(n) the procedure on sale in execution of writs and the persons by whom such sales may be conducted;
(o) the method of transfer of property, movable or immovable, shares, securities and other chattels on sales in execution of writs;
(p) the circumstances in which proceedings in process may be transferred from one court in a division or district to another court in the same division or district or to a court in another division or district;
(q) the procedure to be followed in the High Court upon an application of a judgment creditor in a magistrate's court for a writ of execution in respect of immovable property;
(r) prescribing anything or any person requires by Parts III, IV, V and VI of this Act to be prescribed, and
(s) generally for giving effect to the provisions and intentions of Parts III, IV, V and VI of this Act and prescribing and regulating procedure thereunder.’. (Underlining is mine for emphasis).
Furthermore, I wish to state that the duties and significance of bailiffs in Nigerian courts in the administration of justice system cannot be overemphasized. In explaining the significance of the court’s bailiffs and the negative consequences of their shortfalls, I humbly refer to the decision of Honourable Justice Kekere-Ekun (J.S.C.) while delivering the lead Judgment in the case of EMEKA v. OKOROAFOR & ORS (2017) LPELR-41738(SC). My Lord, held thus
‘...On the importance of a bailiff carrying out his statutory duty in accordance with the Rules or Order of Court, I refer to Odutola Vs Kayode (1994) 2 NWLR (pt.324) 1 @ 19 - 20 G - A, where Olatawura, JSC (of blessed memory) stated thus: "This case has brought out clearly the statutory and honest duties required of a bailiff: to serve in accordance with order of Court. Where personal service is ordered, he must serve that person personally. Where a substituted service either by pasting at the last known abode of the person required to be served, or by publication in a newspaper is ordered, any other service which is not in accordance with the clear and unambiguous language of the Court is ineffectual. Bailiffs are officers of the Court. Any dereliction of duty in the discharge of their duties will cause unnecessary delay in the administration of justice. A false return of service on the part of the bailiff may lead to an attempt to deceive the Court. This in itself is an abuse of that order." Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Pp. 54-55, Paras. B-A).
Furthermore, on the significance or importance of the duties of bailiffs, His Lordship Kekere-Ekun J.S.C. in this case law (supra) held thus
‘It is the usual practice when applying for substituted service to specify the name in which service is to be effected, the person on whom it is to be effected and where. The applicant chooses the vocation where he believes the processes are most likely to come to the attention of the person to be served. He may also request a particular mode of service, such as pasting at the party’s last known abode or place of business, by handing it to a named adult at a particular address or by publication in a widely circulating newspaper. The order would be made in accordance with the request. Having sought and obtained such a specific order. It cannot be open to a bailiff effecting service to do so at any other address or by any other means without a fresh order obtained from the Court. The bailiff purportedly effected service of the processes on the 1st respondent on 16/4/14 and deposed to an affidavit of service the following day, 17/4/14. In the affidavit of service deposed to he averred inter alia that he effected service by delivering same personally to 1st respondent through Shedrack Lawrence at 5 Mbanano street Independence Layout. “Before the day I served the motion on notice I did not know Shedrack Lawrence personally, but after he was pointed out to me by Richard Akwah I asked him if he were Shedrack Lawrence and he said that he was." I had earlier reproduced the analysis of this affidavit by the lower Court as found at pages 752-753 of the record. I am in full agreement with the lower Court that there were many questions begging for answers in the said affidavit, as to how the purported service of the processes at an address other than the one contained in the order of Court came about. With due respect to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the standard format of an affidavit of service does not preclude the bailiff from deposing to specific facts where he has not effected service in accordance with the order of Court. There was no reference in the order to any Shedrack Lawrence or to No. 5 Mbanano Street, therefore the averment that he did not know Shedrack Lawrence personally was immaterial, since he was not ordered by the Court to serve Shedrack Lawrence with any process nor was he ordered to serve any process at No.5 Mbanano Street. On the importance of a bailiff carrying out his statutory duty in accordance with the Rules or Order of Court, I refer to Odutola Vs Kayode (1994) 2 NWLR (pt.324) 1 @ 19 - 20 G - A, where Olatawura, JSC (of blessed memory) stated thus: "This case has brought out clearly the statutory and honest duties required of a bailiff: to serve in accordance with order of Court. Where personal service is ordered, he must serve that person personally. Where a substituted service either by pasting at the last known abode of the person required to be served, or by publication in a newspaper is ordered, any other service which is not in accordance with the clear and unambiguous language of the Court is ineffectual.
Bailiffs are officers of the Court. Any dereliction of duty in the discharge of their duties will cause unnecessary delay in the administration of justice. A false return of service on the part of the bailiff may lead to an attempt to deceive the Court. This in itself is an abuse of that order." The initial affidavit of service deposed to by the bailiff clearly showed on its face that service was not effected in the manner stated in the order of Court. The 1st respondent deposed to facts purporting to show that the affidavit of service was false. He also averred that at 4.20pm when the processes were allegedly served on Shedrack Lawrence he was at Evangel House. The bailiff on the other hand in his further affidavit averred that the 1st respondent was not available at Evangel House when he went there to effect service; that he and the pointer, one Mr. Richard Akwoh were informed that the 1st respondent had left for the day and had gone home, which was why he went to serve the processes at 5 Mbanano Street. I agree with the lower Court that having regard to the material conflicts in the affidavits deposed to on either side, the learned trial Judge was not at liberty to pick and choose which averments to believe without calling for oral evidence to resolve same. The 1st respondent averred categorically in paragraph 16 of his counter affidavit to the affidavits of service of the bailiff that he was prepared to call witnesses to rebut the averments therein. In the circumstances of this case, the non-filing of a further affidavit to challenge the averments in the second affidavit sworn to by the bailiff, was not fatal. The 1st respondent had already sworn to facts stating his whereabouts at the time and on the day the processes were allegedly served on him and how the processes eventually got to his notice. No useful purpose would have been served by a further repetition of the same facts. It has been argued that as long as the processes came to the respondents' attention and they appeared in Court and were represented by counsel, it would amount to enthroning technicalities on the altar of substantial justice to contend that service was not proved. With due respect to learned senior counsel, the issue here is that at the behest of the appellant, a particular mode of service was ordered by the Court. On the first day the matter came up for hearing i.e. on 17/4/2014, learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent, D.C. DENWIGWE, SAN challenged the mode of service, as the processes were dropped at Mbanano Street, two buildings away from the 1st respondent's residence and not at the address provided in the order of Court. Thus, his appearance at that stage was under protest. Having challenged the mode of service and compliance with the order of Court the onus shifted to the appellant, and by extension, the bailiff of the Court to prove that service was effected in compliance with the order of Court. As observed earlier, the learned trial Judge could not have determined the issue without oral evidence to resolve the conflicts in the affidavit evidence on either side. I therefore agree with the lower Court that service of the originating processes was not proved. This issue is accordingly resolved against the appellant. (Kekere-Ekun, pp. 52-57). (Underlining is mine for emphasis).
Also, in this same case, it was further held thus ‘Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides for the presumption of regularity of official acts. It provides thus;
"(1) Where any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with." The law is trite that an affidavit of service deposed to by the bailiff of a Court stating the fact, place, mode and date of service and describing the process or document served shall be prima facie proof of the matter stated in the affidavit, See: Schroder Vs Major (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.101)Â 3 @ 11 E - H; Okoye Vs Centre Point Merchant Bank Ltd. (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1110) 335: Idisi Vs Ecodril (Nig) Ltd. (2016) LPELR- 40438 (SC). The law is equally settled that the presumption of regularity in this regard is rebuttable. A defendant who intends to challenge the affidavit of service deposed to by the bailiff must file an affidavit denying service and detailing specific facts, which show that he could not have been served on the date, or at the time, or at the place or in the manner deposed to. It would then be for the Court to determine whether or not the party complaining was indeed served accordingly. Earlier in this judgment I reproduced the two affidavits comprehensively deposed to by the 1st respondent. (Kekere-Ekun JSC, pp. 46-47). My Lord also held thus ‘My Lords, I deem it appropriate to commence the resolution of this issue by considering, briefly, the law governing the service of originating processes. The settled position of the law was clearly stated by His Lordship, Musdapher, JSC (as he then was) in Kida Vs Ogunmola (2006) 6 SCNJ 165 @ 174 thus: service of process on a party to an action, particularly an originating process, is crucial and fundamental. See Auto Import Export v. Adetayo (2000) 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 554; S.G.B.N v. Adewunmi (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 526; Mbadinuju v. Ezuka (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 364) 535. Failure to serve process where service of process is required is a fundamental vice. It deprives the trial Court of the necessary competence and jurisdiction to hear the suit. In other words, the condition precedent to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction was not fulfilled. To underscore the importance of service, His Lordship continued at page 175 lines 5 - 7 (supra); Confining myself to the fundamental issue of service in this matter, I need not even consider the argument of counsel since where there is no service, there is no valid trial. "The principle was re-stated in the recent decision of this Court in; Ihedioha Vs Okorocha (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt.1492) 148 @ 179 D-F by Okoro, JSC: "... I agree that it is not every non-compliance with the Rules of Court that should vitiate the proceedings. However, where the non-compliance robs the Court of its jurisdiction, the processes and the proceedings must be set aside. I must emphasize that service of process is an important aspect of the judicial process. Failure to serve a named party with Court process offends Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Any breach of this principle (of fair hearing) renders the proceedings a nullity. See Chime vs. Onyia (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 480) 673 @ 730-731 Paras H-B; (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1124) 1. See also: Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd. Vs Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6: Obimonure Vs Erinosho (1966) 1 ALL NLR 250: Craig Vs Kanseen (1943) K.B 256; National Bank (Nig) Ltd. vs. Guthrie (Nig) Ltd. (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.284) 643. It is therefore settled beyond dispute that the service of an originating process on a party to an action is a condition precedent to the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction, as any party against whom a suit or process is filed has the right to know that a suit had been instituted against him, what the claims are and an opportunity to defend himself if he has a defence thereto.’. (Kekere-Ekun JSC, pp. 31-33). Also see the cases of: UBA PLC & ORS V. ADEMOLA (2008) LPELR-5066(CA); INEC v. DPP & ORS(2014) LPELR-22809(CA); EMERALD GARLAND BEVERAGES LTD. & ANOR v. MADUECHESI (2010) LPELR-4104(CA) and a host of other cases on the subject matter.
Whereas and furthermore on the negative consequences of some of the courts bailiffs, it is surprising to discover that some of the Nigerian courts’ bailiffs are not given requisite training on their duties! Sometimes too, some of the courts do not even have bailiffs as a result of which Court’s registrars (even as lawyers) and clerks have been used though as officers of courts (but definitely not trained about the tasks/responsibilities). This, in my humble view, gives reasons for a poor functioning as an imposed bailiff! These imposed bailiffs (even as officers of courts but not trained to do the works of bailiffs) do not understand how to effect ‘proper service’ (and not just service) of court’s processes. See: the case of NJOEMANA v. UGBOMA & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22494(CA) (Per IGE, J.C.A. (Pp. 31-33, paras. D-B) on what amounts to proper and improper service of court’s processes. Some of these registrars imposed as bailiff (against their will from my observation and experiences) are not happy being downgraded to the level of a bailiff to serve court’s processes! Also, there are those clerks or even registrars or bailiffs that their main interest in serving court’s processes is to make profit or gain much more money than required officially! Lack of training for whoever that is engaged to serve court’s processes is fatal as either the person serves the process in a manner that violates procedural requirements or the person would negligently fail to state necessary details required on a certificate of service or affidavit of service as the case might be which is also fatal as it would cause the court not to be persuaded by counsel who has mobilized the bailiff to serve the said process due to lack of details because the discretion of the court would likely not be used by the court in this instance.
Sometimes too, some of these bailiffs do their works (as if unhappy about their job) in such a very reckless manner! After serving, some of them would not put the endorsed copy/proof of service of the court’s process in the court’s file which would definitely cause the court to adjourn the matter till another date so that the endorsed copy/proof of service is in the court’s file (either in case of service of originating process or any other process or hearing notice)! Many of the time, nothing is done in rebuking and or disciplining those negligent and reckless bailiffs by the courts. The court, with due respect, would only visit its anger and or rebuke on the counsel who had (diligently) paid the bailiff to serve whereas the bailiff has failed to perform his functions! In this area, with due respect to our courts, this indulgence encourages these bailiffs to continue to take their official duties negligently! Some of these reckless and negligent bailiffs enjoy the protection of the court and if the aggrieved lawyer should complain, some of the courts would stand to defend those bailiffs (from my personal experiences) and take out the anger on the innocent lawyer! This indeed requires a review by our courts! The post judgment matters also are not spared in these flaws by some of the bailiffs of courts!
In regard to these lapses on the part of some of these bailiffs, I humbly recommend that all heads of courts have to continuously checkmate the activities of bailiffs of courts and any other officers of courts assigned to serve court’s processes. Also, those courts that do not have bailiffs should be provided and for each court (at least two bailiff for each court). Also, sufficient and efficient trainings should be given to bailiffs and or any officer of court that would be used to serve court’s processes as to the manners of effecting proper service; the manner and or procedures for stating details in the affidavit/certificate of service deposed to by the bailiff or the officer; and what details are required mandatorily to be on an affidavit/certificate of service deposed to by the bailiff or the officer (and if not served but efforts were made which proved abortive, the proper manner of stating the details of efforts made, when, where, how and the sequence). Therefore, necessary disciplinary measures must be meted out on any bailiff or officer of court who fails and or becomes negligent of his official duties and having regard to the legal consequences of: non-service of court’s processes and the improperly served processes of courts as well as non-detailed information as to efforts made in the service which proved abortive as it aims at either denying the other party his right to fair hearing and thereby nullifying the proceedings and the decision taken on such proceedings and thereby embarrassing the court before the higher court or necessitating a further cost on the party mobilizing service for re-service of the process or an adjournment of the proceedings till proper service is made or the court is convinced of the efforts made to serve. Registrars of courts are lawyers and senior officers of court compared to bailiffs and so should not be downgraded to the level of having to serve court’s processes henceforth as it undermines the status of those lawyers acting as Registrars of courts! The Practice Direction on Service of Process(es) at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, issued by: Hon. Justice Ishaq Usman Bello, Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory (as he then was) having commenced on the 29th day of October, 2018, which prescribes the amount of for milage in respect of service of processes should be enforced in the Courts to which it is applicable! These recommendations would (in my humble view) in no doubt help in the administration of justice system and ensure that justice is manifestly done!
Now, notwithstanding the above, there are several risks and challenges faced by Bailiffs of courts some of which are itemized below with proffered solutions in addressing those risks and challenges:
Transfer of aggression to the Bailiffs by either the litigants or the lawyer or the acquaintances or comrades of the litigants: whereas, it is important for litigants to be aware and know that bailiffs are court officials and officers of courts that should be respected as such because any assault on them is an assault on the court on whose authority they are performing their duties. Also, the litigants need to understand that those bailiffs are not parties to the case but messengers to deliver a court process. So, grudges or aggression should not be transferred to the bailiff;
Bailiffs are many a time, disrespected and their personality doubted as either being spies or impostor probably because majority of bailiffs (especially of High Courts and other inferior courts) do not wear official uniforms to easily identify them with. Hence, I humbly recommend that bailiffs should be provided uniform to wear to aid them to be easily identified whenever they are out to perform their duties;
Another challenge and risk is the issue of assault, physical attacks, body injuries, and in fact, death, in some extreme occasions or permanent injury, unlawful imprisonment for certain period, threat, etc. that some of these bailiffs suffer in the hands of some of the litigants and or their allies: In my humble recommendation, Bailiffs should be provided ‘police’ as security and if this is not possible or sustainable, bailiffs should be trained in ‘paramilitary’ trainings and be given ‘handcuffs’ each. Also, the bailiffs should be given the alternative discretion of ‘calling their superior i.e. the Sheriffs’ for immediate reinforcement of the police whenever the circumstance justifies threat to their life or property or there is an attack on their person by any person;
Security and law enforcement agencies of government many a time, trouble the bailiffs in the most disrespectful manner that they refuse the bailiff from delivering the court processes and also make them to go through unnecessary and highly frustrating conditions before service disregarding the fact that the bailiffs are officers of the court (which is the judicial arm of the government). In fact, bailiffs of courts are made to queue and follow highly bureaucratic conditions before they court deliver court processes which discourages some of those bailiffs to go to such agency to serve processes: In this situation, the way out is for the bailiff to depose to an affidavit explaining what has happened and the attitude of such concerned security and law enforcement agency of the government. Then, the court should make a ‘bench order’ ordering that the suit should proceed in the absence of such agency of government since it has chosen not to be served and decided to disrespect the court when it disrespected the court bailiff. It then becomes its duties to follow-up on its case or judgment be delivered in default of its appearance in court. Since, also, it has chosen to waive its fair hearing, the opportunity having been granted to him by the court. Also, the bailiff may also report those inconveniences and or complaints to their superior i.e. the Sheriff, for necessary action and or policy;
The challenge of vicious dogs in the premises or compound sought to be served by the bailiffs: there are occasions where some premises have vicious dogs which easily attacks and or assaults bailiffs of court. In this case, the person sought to be served should be held liable for whatever harm that is done to the court officers in the discharge of their duties;
Risks of loss of life in the performance of their duties: some bailiffs have suffered risks to life including permanent body injuries as a result of accidents, kidnapping (including what is referred to as ‘one-chance syndicates’) in the course of transporting from one location to another to deliver or serve court processes. I was informed of an incident where a bailiff was unlucky to enter a ‘one-chance’ syndicate’s vehicle and after robbing and collecting all the bailiff’s belongings, threw him out of the moving vehicle which lead to the death of the said bailiff of court! This risk would be minimized in my humble recommendation, where the bailiffs have life insurance specifically for a situation where a bailiff dies in the course of moving around to perform his duties and where there are permanent injuries apart from the regular insurances general to all staff of the court. This insurance policy would grant those bailiffs confidence while performing their duties as they also have family and wards to cater for and no one would have taken care of their family and wards as they would have done, if alive. So, in my humble submission, the insurance would have gone a long way in ameliorating the pains that such family and wards would have sustained in this regard.
Therefore, in my humble recommendations, the above risks and challenges call for an immediate policy change by the Court authorities to reflect the solutions and or recommendations provided by this paper to each of the itemized risks and challenges in order to promote efficient justice delivery.
Finally, and in conclusion of this paper, therefore, I humbly call on all courts authorities to immediately consider the risks and challenges that the duties of bailiffs pose to those bailiffs including (the Sheriffs themselves) and make an immediate policy change by making rules for the protection and welfare of the bailiffs and the Sheriffs while reflecting those solutions that I have proffered to each of the challenges above. This policy, to my mind, would in no doubt improve and or promote efficient justice delivery as the bailiffs and the Sheriffs are parts of the justice system (civil or criminal).
Email: [email protected] 08168292549.