Legal Maxim

The right to fair hearing is well established and entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence and indeed enjoys universal appeal and application in view of its constitutional and fundamental importance. Indeed Section 36(4) CFRN 2011 (as amended) clearly embodies two traditional maxim to wit: audi alteram partem (the other party must be heard) as held in to the locus classicus of R V. THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (1723) S.128 and nemo judex in causa sua (a person shall not be a judge in his own case. See also GARBA & ORS. V. THE UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) 2 S.C. 128.

OYEYEMI(RTD) &

The Appellant has a right; he was deprived of enjoying same; and there must be a remedy – see Bello V A-G Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.45) 828, where Oputa, JSC, aptly observed as follows
"Holt. CJ in the now famous case of Ashby V. White (1703) postulated the principle that "if a plaintiff has a right he must of necessity have the means to vindicate it and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment or exercise of it and indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal". The Maxim "Ubi jus, Ubi remediun" is simply the latin rendition of the above principle. The maxim is so fundamental to the administration of justice that where there is no remedy provided by common law or Statute, the Courts have been urged to create one. The Courts cannot therefore be deterred by the novelty of an action.
In other words, the law is an equal dispenser of justice, and leaves none without a remedy for his right. Wherever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy to redress that wrong. Justice, it is said, must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

"It is also well settled that any proceedings conducted in breach of a party's right to fairhearing jeopardised the proceedings and nothing could come out of it.
Any hearing, no matter how well conducted would be rendered a nullity. See Tsokwa Motors (Nig) Ltd v U.B.A Plc (2008) ALL FWLR (pt. 403) 1240 @1255 A-B; Adigun v A.G. Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 674; Okafor v A.G. Anambra State (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 200) 59; Leaders & Co. Ltd. v Bamaiyi (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 329. It was held in recent decision of this Court in Abubakar Audu v FRN (2013) 53 NSCOR 456 @ 4691; "The law is indeed well settled that fair hearing within the meaning of Section 36(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, means a trial or hearing conducted according to all legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties. It requires the observation or observance of the twin pillars of the rules of natural justice, namely audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. These rules, the obligation to hear the other side of a dispute or the right of a party in dispute to be heard, is so basic and fundamental a principle of our adjudicatory system in the determination of disputes that it cannot be compromised on any ground. See Nwokoro v Onuma (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.136) 22.