MR. MUBE F. NWAKAJI & ORS v. MR. GODWIN OSAROLUKA & ANOR
(2014)LCN/6907(CA)
RATIO
WHETHER NON-SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE WOULD AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIR HEARING
I therefore agree with the appellants, on authority of ANIDIOBI v. ANIDIOBI (2007) 12 NWLR [pt.1017] 13, that a party deserves to be served with a hearing notice whenever the case is adjourned in his absence to a new date for hearing.
Every litigant, in civil or criminal proceedings, is entitled to a counsel of his choice to represent him in court. The counsel, once he accepts the litigant’s brief, cannot withdraw appearance for the litigant without affording the litigant an opportunity to be heard. The court, granting leave to counsel to withdraw his appearance or further appearance for his client in a pending case, is under obligation to be satisfied, first, that the litigant was fully aware that his counsel would take that course.
I had earlier set out in detail the charade of the proceedings at the trial court which ensured, throughout, that the plaintiffs conducted this very contentious case before the said court ex parte and in total disregard of the basic principles of fair hearing in adjudication by a judicial body. The proceedings conducted by an adjudicating authority, in total disregard of the party’s right to fair hearing, are a nullity and evidence from such blatant violation of the party’s right to fair hearing cannot support any judgment, no matter how well written. Per EJEMBI EKO, J.C.A
