Hearing Notice

The Court was undoubtedly in error, the parties having not adopted their written addresses, after dismissal of the preliminary objection, to proceed to a deliberation of the application before it. This is more so where a financial relief of no mean amount is sought, as in this case.
Indeed, it has been held in the case of Akinrimisi v Maersk (Nig) Ltd (2013) 10 NWLR Part 1361 Page 73 at 87 Para C, per Ngwuta JSC that:
"It is trite that a matter set down for mention should not be heard on the day it was fixed for mention, although the parties may agree to request the Court to take the case."
Thus, even though, in the instant case, the case was adjourned for Ruling and not mention, the same principle applies.

SALELE AHMED V. ABDULLAHI &

By way of preliminary observations, it is, indeed, correct to assert that hearing notice is the only legal means of getting a party to appear in Court, Onwuka V. Owolewa (2001) 28 WRN 89; (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt.713) 695. Thus, the issuance of hearing notice from day to day on the absent party is imperative, Onwuka V. Owolewa (supra);Fetuga V. Barclays Bank D. C. O. (1970) 1 All NLR 28. In this connection, it must be emphasized that such an absent party is, equally, entitled to be issued and served with a hearing notice of the date of the delivery of he judgment because it is a constitutive part of the hearing of the action, Okoye V. N. C. and F. C. Ltd (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 199) 501; Akoh V. Abuh [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt 85) 696; C A. F. S Ltd V. Mallah (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt.569) 16; Okafor V. AG, Anambra State and Ors (1991) LPELR-SC.264/1998, 27-28; John A. S.C Ltd V. Mfon (2007) 4 WRN 173, 188 189; Dawodu v. Ologundudu and Ors [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt 33) 104. The consequence is that where such a process is not served, the entire proceedings would be vitiated. It would be immaterial that it was well-conducted, Habib Nig Bank Ltd v Opemulero and Ors (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.690) 315; Sken Consult Nig Ltd V. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6; Mbadiniju and Ors v Ezuka and Ors (1994) 10 SCNJ 109; [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt.364) 535; Folorunsho V. Shaloub [1994] 3 NWLR (Pt.333) 413. This prescription is premised on the radical nature of he right enshrined both in the common law principle of audi alteram partem, Omabuwa v Owhofatsho (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.972) 40, 67; Tuboneni V. Dikibo (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt 974) 565, 587-588; AG Rivers State V. Ude (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt.1008) 438; Bamgboye V. UNILORIN (1990) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290; Deduwa V. Okorodudu (1976) 9 10 SC 329 and Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Ukpo V. Imoke (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt.1121) 90, 171; Salau V. Egeibon (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.348) 32; Ceekay Traders Ltd V. G.M.C. Ltd (1992) 2 NWLR (pt.222) 132. It has, thus, long been settled that...