Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 11218

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT JOS

Tue May 26, 2015

Suit Number: CA/J/10/2013

CORAM

PARTIES

ABUBAKAR GABDO

APPELLANTS

ABUBAKAR USMAN

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an Appeal against the judgment of the Gombe State High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction. The case of the Respondent as Plaintiff before the trial Upper Area Court 2, was that the land in dispute was his farmland situate at Burnewal/Wuro Tara village in Abba Dukku Local Government Area of Gombe State, which land he has been cultivating for well over 35 years, having first cleared it himself and that the land was given to him by his father in his life time as a virgin land and has never been cultivated by anybody else before him in order to avoid any claim subsequently by any other person.  However, the events leading to the filing of the suit before the trial Upper Court Gombe was that upon his clearing the land the Appellant interfered and burnt down the things he cleared on the land, hence the suit to declare his title to the farm land against the appellant.  On his part, the case of the appellant as Defendant before the trial Upper Area Court 2, Gombe was that the land in dispute belonged to his father, on whose death he inherited it as his farmland. At the close of the case for the respective parties, the trial Upper Area Court visited the land in dispute and delivered its judgment and decreed title to the land in dispute in favour of the Respondent as Defendant, which judgment on subsequent appeal to the Court below was set aside on by the Court below, which decreed title to the land in dispute in favour of the Respondent as Appellant; hence this appeal to this Court by the Appellant.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether section 3.01 of the Practice Direction No. 1 of 2008 of Gombe State High Court applies to Appeal matters before the High Court of Justice Gombe State?
2. Whether the High Court of Justice Gombe State has conducted a fair trial in view of the obvious fact that the Appellant was neither issued any hearing Notice nor notified of the appeal coming up, nevertheless the lower Court proceeded with the appeal in his absence to judgement?
3. Whether the Respondent has proved his case on the balance of probability with credible evidence to warrant the High Court of justice Gombe State re-evaluate the evidence and confirmed the disputed land to the respondent?
4. Whether the High Court of Justice Gombe State was right to have applied the Islamic doctrine of Hauzi to the appeal?
5. Whether there existed any reason to have warranted the High Court of Justice to have disturbed the finding of fact and conclusion drawn by the trial Upper Area Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – REQUIREMENT OF A VALID ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Having so held as above, the law is well settled that an issue for determination to be valid must be distilled from the ground of Appeal and thus cannot stand in vacum.  Therefore, in law an issue for determination not founded upon or derivable or distilled or arising from a competent ground or grounds of appeal is utterly incompetent and must be discountenanced and I so discountenance it.  See Roba Investment Ltd V. Arewa Mental container Ltd (2010) LPELR 4900; Peter V. Okoye (2002) FWLR (pt. 110) 1864; Lambert V. Nigerian Navy (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 950) 54; Borishade V. NBA Ltd (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) 217; Oniah V. Onyia (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 99) 514; Ugo V. Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 99) 566; Aja V. Okoro (1991) 7 NWLR (pt. 203) 260; Osafile V. Odi (1994) 2 SCNJ 1; Chief Kafara Oje V. Chief Ganiyu Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) 267; Osinupebi V. Saibu & Ors (1982) 7 SC 104; Western Steel Works Ltd V. Iron and Steel Workers Union of Nigeria & ors (No.2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

POWER OF COURT – WHETHER OR NOT A COURT IS IMBUED WITH POWER TO MAKE NECESSARY ORDERS

It must be remembered always that a judge is regarded in law as “dominus litus” meaning in full control of his Court according to law.  In that capacity, a court is imbued with power to make necessary orders, in so far as it does not occasion any miscarriage of justice, for the purpose of ensuring a fair and expeditious determination of the matter before it.  See Benjamin Ukelere V. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2011) LPELR 3869; see also Dapianlong V. Dariye (2007) 8 NWLR (pt. 1036) 239. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – WHETHER OR NOT THE SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS NECESSARY

In law, the service of hearing notice may or may not be necessary or essential depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of any given case.  Happily there is no dearth of decided cases on this very important aspect of our law but rather there is a surfeit of authorities as are replete in our law reports on when service of hearing notice may or may not be necessary. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – THE ESSENCE OF SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE

The essence of service of the hearing notice, as I understand it in law, is that it is designed to put parties on Notice of a future date in which the suit or appeal or matter will be called or heard.  The objective, in my view, is to give the parties opportunity of fair hearing, to be heard before any decision affecting their rights is taken.  See Section 36(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended.  Now while the service of hearing notice may be a duty on the part of the Court on the one hand or a right of the parties on the other hand; the duty of issuing it is exclusively that of the Court.  See Folorunso V. Shaloub (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 413 @ P. 430.  See also Nirchandani V. Pinheiro (2001)1 FWLR (pt. 48) 1307 @ P. 1320. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – WHEN DOES IT BECOME NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE A HEARING NOTICE

In law, at any time when it becomes clear to the Court that a party who is absent in Court was not aware of the date, it will be necessary for the Court, in the interest of justice and fair hearing, to order and issue hearing notice.  However, where ignorance of a sitting date is self induced, it is my view that such a party in default is not entitled to a hearing notice.  See Baba V. Atunbi (2012) 3 NWLR (pt. 1287) 354. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – IMPORTANCE OF SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE

It is worth pointing out that the importance of service hearing notice is underscored by the grim consequences of failure to do so where it is necessary to so do.  The position of the law is that such a failure in the circumstances in which issuance and service of a hearing notice is necessary, would amount to a fundamental omission, which renders the proceedings so conducted and the judgment so entered null and void and liable to be set aside on appeal.  See Baba V. Atunbi (supra) @ Pp. 366 – 368.  See also Sigbenu V. Imafidon (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 231 @ P. 252; Ndukauba V. Kolomo (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 915) 411; Scolt Emuakpor V. Ukavbe (1975) 12 SC 41; SPDC Nig. Ltd V. Niger Optical Service Co Ltd (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 872) 420; Somai Sonka Ltd V. Adzege (2001) FWLR (Pt. 68) 1104. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – WHETHER OR NOT SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS SUBJECT TO ABUSE BY PARTIES

However, it must be pointed out at once that on the reverse side of the requirement of service of hearing notice is the ugly reality of it being subject to abuse by parties, particularly those parties who may cling to it as a right and become lackadaisical in the prosecution or defence of their cases.  Thus where a party or his counsel was in Court on the sitting of a Court and the case is adjourned to another further date, it will be incongrouse for such a party to insist on service of hearing notice on him should he or his counsel fail to appear in Court on the next adjourned date.  In law, a party who fails to take or make use of the opportunity given to him to present his case cannot be heard or allowed to complain of a denial of fair hearing.  See Uhembe V. Parkes (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1395) 475; Nichandani V. Pmheiro (2001) FWLR (Pt. 48) 1307) @ Pp. 1318 -1320; Kaduna Textiles Ltd V. Umar (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 319) 143; Ajaokuta Steel Co Nig Ltd V. Biosah & Co Nig Ltd (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) 145; Eastern Breweries Plc V. Nwokoro (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1321) 488. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – WHETHER OR NOT A COURT HAS THE FURTHER DUTY TO ISSUE HEARING NOTICE TO A PARTY WHO IS AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING BY DUE SERVICE

On the strength of the decided cases copiously referred above, it is my view that where a party is aware of the date of hearing by due service of hearing notice on him, there is no further duty on the Court to in perpetuity serve him with hearing notices of subsequent adjournment dates and this is so because a party must be diligent in the prosecution or defence of his case.  Equity, as it is often said does not aid the indolent but aids only the vigilant.  See Borno College of Agric V. Malluma (2014 15 NWLR (Pt. 1431) 605 @ P. 609.  See also Ekiti LGA V. Aje Printing Nig. Ltd (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 11131) 304 @ P. 309 where Sankey JCA; had put this issue succinctly in its proper context thus:

“Where a matter has been slated for hearing on a particular date and parties have been properly informed by due service of hearing notices on them, there is no further duty on the Court to serve them with hearing notices on subsequent dates of adjournment.  A diligent litigant and his counsel are expected to keep abreast of all subsequent dates on which the case is adjourned to.  Where they neglect to do so, they cannot be heard to complain, as equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”

I cannot but agree completely with his Lordship that this represent the correct and current position of the law on the issue of service of hearing notices in our Courts. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF COURT TO OBSERVE THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

The law is and has always been that a failure by a Court to observe the right to fair hearing of a party in the litigation process vitiates both the proceedings and judgment of the Court whose proceedings is affected by the deadly incurable and highly contagious virus of lack of or denial of fair hearing, notwithstanding the merit or otherwise of the cases of the parties or indeed how meticulous the proceedings were or even how sound the judgment was on the merit.  Once, the right to fair hearing was breached, they are all a nullity.   See Agbogu V. Adichie (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 509 @ 531; Agbapounwu V. Agbapuonwu (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 165) 33 @ p. 40. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

JUSTICE – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON JUSTICE

The law remains deeply rooted that justice should not be scarified on the altar of speed, even though the common aphorism, now in the nature of a cliche:  “Justice delayed is justice denied” holds true, yet “Justice rushed is equally justice crushed or denied” See Abubakar V. Yar Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (pt. 1078) 465 @ P. 503.  See also Uzodinma V. Izunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30 @ P. 111; NPC V. Chairman Ikere LG. (2001) 14 NWLR (pt. 831) 54; UBA Plc V. Mode Nig. Ltd (2001) 13 NWLR (PT. 730) 335); Agbogu V. Adichie (2002) FWLR (Pt. 127) 1201. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

FAIR HEARING – HOW TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF FAIR HEARING

But, the issue of fair hearing must be raised with all seriousness and bone fide and not mala fide or merely intended to raise a storm in a tea cup without any real factual basis.  See Adegbesin V. The State (2014) 9 NWLR (pt. 1413) 609 @ Pp. 641 – 642 where Ngwuta JSC: had pronounced emphatically thus”

“As for the related complaint of denial of right to fair hearing, my Lord Chukuma Eneh JSC had this to say” ‘There can be no doubt from the foregoing resume that “fair hearing” has become the whipping principles for counsel trying to catch at a straw to sustain a modicum of standing in a hopeless case where the case is already dead as a dodo.  The approach of counsel in general is deprecated.  Fair hearing should, from what it is and represents in our adjudicative process be raised only seriously and not lightly’ I agree with his Lordship”

The Appellant having through his counsel waived his right to ask for an adjournment on 15/12/2010 when the appeal was heard before the Court below, cannot now complain.  See Ariori V. Elemo (1983) 1 SCNLR 1 @ P. 13.   See also Odu’a Inv. V. Talabi (1971) 7 SCNJ 600 or (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 523) 1.  Appellant’s counsel presence was therefore, sufficient for the presence of the Appellant on 15/12/2010 when the Appeal was heard at the Court below since the Constitution of this country recognises the right of a litigant to represent himself or by a counsel of his own choice.  See Kubau V. Rilwanu (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 284 @ P. 303. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – BEST WAY OF PROVING THAT A PARTY IS AWARE OF THE DATE OF PROCEEDINGS AND WAS DULY SERVED WITH HEARING NOTICE

Above all, it may well be noted that the best way of proving that a party is aware of the date of proceedings and duly served with hearing notice is the presence of either that party or his counsel in Court.  The Appellant’s counsel was present in Court on 15/12/2010, as on other prior dates either in person or his brief held by other counsel for the Appellant.  In law, his presence was sufficient and having been obliged with leave of the court below to address the Court below orally at the hearing of the Appeal, no breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing has been made out.  See Mohammed V. Mustapha (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 292) 222 @ P. 232; Guinness Nig. Plc V. Ufot (2008) 2 NWLR (pt. 1070) 51 @ P. 77; Odu V. Fawehinmi (2005) 15 BWLR (Pt. 949) 578 @ P. 598; S.G.B. Nig Ltd V. Adewunmi (2003) FWLR (Pt. 158) 1181 @ P. 1196 and in Okesuji V. Lawal (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 170) 661 @ P. 678 where  Olatawura JSC had this to say on this issue thus:

“Where there is no affidavit service and the person served with a writ or any other process of a Court appears in Court, there is no further need to insist on proof of service.  There cannot be better proof than the appearance in Court of the person on whom the process was served”

In the light of all I have been saying above, it is my view that there being no case of breach of the right of fair hearing of the Appellant made against the Court below, the second issue for determination is hereby resolved in the positive against the Appellant. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE – FIVE WAYS TO PROVE TITLE TO A LAND IN DISPUTE

It is now well accepted that in a claim for declaration of title, a Plaintiff as well as a Defendant/counter claiming declaration of title to land has open to him five way by which to prove his title to the land in dispute.  These five ways, which have crystallized over the years in a long line of decided cases as are replete in our law reports are each if proved by credible and cogent evidence sufficient to ground title in the party who so claims.   These five methods are namely:

(a)       Evidence of traditional history of title

(b)       By production of title documents

(c)       By acts of ownership

(d)       By acts of possession long enough to warrant the person in possession as the owner.

(e)       By acts of possession of a adjoining or adjacent land in such a way as would make it probable that the owner of the adjoining or adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute.

See Idundun V. Okumagba (10976) 6 – 10 SC 48,; Morenikeji V. Adebugun (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 825) 612; Ojah V. Eviawure (2000) FWLR (Pt. 57) 163; Okore V. Onuyejuwa (2001) FWLT (pt. 41) 1820. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

PREDECESSOR TITLE – THE POSITION OF THE LAW WHEN THE TITLE OF THE PREDECESSOR IS MADE AN ISSUE

The law is settled that where the title of the predecessor in title is made an issue, then the party so claiming has a duty to prove the title to his predecessor in title, after all the law is nemo dat quod non habet.  One cannot give to another what he does not have. See Yakubu V. Impresit Bakolori Plx & Ors (2010) LPELR 5110;  See also Ajibalu V. Ajayi (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 458, Dosunmu V. Jofo (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 65) 297. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

ROOT OF TITLE – WHETHER OR NOT ROOT OF TITLE MUST FIRST BE PROVED BEFORE OTHER ACTS MAY BE REGARDED AS ACTS OF OWNERSHIP

In law, once a party relied on a root of title, it is that root of title that must first be proved before the other acts may rightly be regarded as acts of ownership.  In other words, where a Plaintiff had relied, as in the instant case gift of the land inter vivos by his father, he must first prove this fact of gift and the most crucial fact of title in his father before he can rely on acts of ownership and possession.  In the event of failure to prove the root of title pleaded, the Respondent cannot turn round to rely merely on acts of ownership and possession, no matter how long.  His claim in such circumstances ought to have been dismissed as rightly done by the trial Upper Area Court, whose judgment, very sound in its findings and conclusions, was regrettably without any sound legal basis set aside by the Court below.  See Nwokorebia V. Nwogu & Ors (20080 All FWLR (pt. 476) 1868; Eyo V. Onuoha (2011) 195 LRCN 38; Olodo V. Chief Josiah & Ors (2012) 12 NMLR 510. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

LAND – WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON CAN GIFT ANOTHER PERSON A LAND WHICH HE DOES NOT HAVE

The law, as I had earlier stated is now well settled; it is nemo dat quod non habet.  There was no iota of evidence of how the Respondent’s father became the owner of the land in dispute which he allegedly gave as a gift inter vivos to his son, the Respondent.  No one can in law give to another person what he does not have and the Respondent’s father is no exception to his long well established principles of land law.  See N. S.  I. T. F.   V. Iyen (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt, 1412) 323 @ P. 345; See also  Egbuta V. Onuna (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 298. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE – WHETHER OR NOT CIVIL CASES ARE DECIDED ON A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE OR ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES

Civil cases are decided on a preponderance of evidence or on a balance of probabilities.  Had the court below properly appraised and reevaluted the evidence on the printed recrod, it would not had come to the errorneous and perserve findings of facts as it did in favour of the Respondent who had failed woefully to prove any title of the land in dispute.  This is so because in law the burden of proof in civil cases is that of balance of probability or preponderance of evidence ensuing from a careful evaluation of the evidence proferred by the parties and puting same on the imaginary scale of justice to see which side the evidence preponderates.   However, the evidence that is worth puting on the scale are such evidence which are incredible, probabale and worthy of weight not evidence which are incredible, inadmissible and not worthy of any weight.  See Jiaza V. Bamgbose & Anor (1999) 7 NWLR (pt. 610) 182;  see also dibiamaka V. Osakwe (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 107) 101; Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC p2; Onwuka V. Ediala (9189) 1 NWLR (pt. 96) 182; Ekpo V. Ita (1932) 11 NLR 68. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE – WHEN IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE CONTRADICTORY

Now a piece of evidence will be said to contradict another when it affirms the opposite of what that evidence has stated and not when there is just minor discrepancy between the two.  See Nwachakwu V. Onwuwaine (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 589) 1044 @ P. 1964.  PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE – WHETHER OR NOT ALL CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE RESULTS IN REJECTION OF EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS

Consequently, it is not all contradictions that would result in the rejection of evidence of a witness.  It is only those that are material and result in a miscarriage of justice that would warrant such a rejection of evidence.  See Okonkwo V. Kano Agricultural Supply Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR 9466;  See also Egesimba V. Onuzurike (2001) FWLR (pt. 128) 1386; Nsirim V. Nsirim (2002) FWLR (Pt. 96) 433; Ezemba V. Ibeneme & Anor (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 223) 1788; Nwokoro V. Onuma & Ors (19890 9 SCNJ 63.  PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

In law, the evaluation of evidence by a Court must not be lopsided or on the basis of double standard to the parties.  Where the evidence of one party, as in this case the Appellant was from the onset evaluated with a view to demolishing it, while the evidence of the Respondent was believed willy nilly without any critical appraisal, such an evaluation cannot stand and its finding totally perverse as rightly contended by the Appellant’s counsel.  See SPDV Ltd V. Ofoko (1990) 6 NWLR (pt. 159) 693 @ P. 707; Nwaezama V. Nwaiyedo (19900 2 NWLR (Pt. 157) 230; Adeleke V. Iyanda (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 1; Awudu V. Daniel (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 109) 199. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – PRIMARY DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ASCRIP PROBATIVE VALUE

This is more so when it is to be constantly borne in mind by an appellate Court that in law the duty of evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value is primarily that of the trial Court, which must have seen and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanour an advantage which the appellate Court looking at the printed record does not have.  See Adekunle V. Aremu (1988) 1 NWLR (pt. 533) 203 @ P. 229. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

POSSESSION – WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IN POSSESSION CAN MAINTAIN AN ACTION AGAINST A PERSON HAVING A BETTER TITLE IN THE LAND

In law therefore, one in possession though he can maintain an action in trespass against any person but he certainly cannot maintain an action against the person having a better title to the land, who is in law presumed to be the person with the right to lawful possession of the land in dispute as against the person who is in possession of the land in dispute without any colour of right.  See Solomon V. Mogaji (1982) 11 SC 1; Ojomo V. Ibrahim (19990 12 NWLR (pt. 631) 415 @ P. 435. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

INFERENCE – DUTY OF A COURT OF LAW TO DRAW INFERENCE

It is to be noted that, a Court of law in arriving at its finding on the evidence led before it, has the legitimate duty to draw necessary inference that flows from and can be deduced from the facts and evidence led before it and such necessary inference is legitimate and cannot be described as mere speculation.   See Nashiru V. Ababakar (19970 4 NWLR (pt. 497) 32. PER – BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA

HEARING NOTICE – THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF ISSUANCE OF HEARING NOTICE

The issue of service of hearing Notices on parties intimating them of the hearing date is very fundamental and its importance cannot be over emphasized as it is the service of hearing Notice that confers on the Court the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, when the case comes up for hearing hence the Court itself has a duty on the date of hearing to fully satisfy itself that a party to the case before it was duly served with hearing Notice and is aware that the case was coming up before the Court on that day. Courts will not assume that a party must have been served and therefore proceed into hearing without verifying whether indeed the party has notice of hearing that will constitute a breach of right to fair hearing to the party affected under section 36(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria1999 (as amended). This failure of hearing can render proceedings of Court a nullity. See Mbadimju & Ors Vs Chukwunyere Ezuka & Ors. (1994) 10 SCNJ 109; Sken Consult (Nig) Ltd Vs. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6; Mrs. Wasem Agena & Or Vs. James Ketseen (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 1543). PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI

HEARING NOTICE – WHETHER OR NOT HEARING NOTICE IS TO BE SERVED ON A PARTY WHO APPEARS IN COURT ON HIS OWN WITHOUT BEING SERVED OR A PARTY WHO WAS PRESENT IN COURT

Service of Notice is meant to put the party to whom it is directed to appear in Court on the appointed date. Where however the party appears on his own without service being effected on him, all well and good since that objective had been attained by the presence of the person or party to whom Notice would ordinarily be directed. In that case service of Hearing Notice will not be necessary. It is also not necessary to issue notice of hearing to a party who was present and in Court on the day that adjournment was taken in his case. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

Practice Direction No. 1 of 2008 of Gombe State High Court

Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT