Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

ESSENCE OF HEARING NOTICE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

What then is the essence of hearing notice? The issue of service of hearing notice on a party notifying him of the hearing date of matters is very fundamental to the administration of justice. It is the service of hearing notice that confers on the Court the jurisdictional competence to entertain the matter before it. Thus where a matter is adjourned to a date other than the date the parties had previous notice of hearing, the Court has a duty to notify them of the subsequent adjournment. The Court should not predicate its decision on mere assumption that a party must have been served with Court process at one stage and that he should be aware of the subsequent hearing dates. See Obimonure v. Erinosho (1966) 1 ANLR 250, Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC.6; Wema Bank Nig. Ltd v. Odulaja (2000) FWLR (Pt.17) 138 142-143.

— P.A. Galumje, JSC. Compact Manifold v Pazan Ltd. (2019) – SC.361/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

DEFINITION OF A HEARING NOTICE

In Akin Folorunso v. Shaloub (1994) 3 NWLR Part 333 page 413 at 430, “a hearing notice” was defined thus: “As a process of the court by which a party to the proceedings is notified of the date the case has been fixed in court where he is not otherwise aware of such a date.”

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUE OF HEARING NOTICE BEARS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Although the receiving of hearing notice is a new issue in this Court, it can be raised without leave of the Court, since it has bearing on the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the Court of Appeal and this Court.

— P.A. Galumje, JSC. Compact Manifold v Pazan Ltd. (2019) – SC.361/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL WITHOUT ORAL EVIDENCE MAY AMOUNT TO HEARING

The word “Hearing” was judicially considered by the Supreme Court in OKOYE & ORS VS NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION & FURNITURES CO. LTD. & ORS (1991) 6 NWLR (PT.199) 501 AT 522 where this Court held “Hearing” a case is not only by oral evidence. Submissions from counsel without oral evidence from parties and the Court consequently giving judgment on the basis of the submissions may amount to hearing and determination of a case or matter.

Was this dictum helpful?

A DATE OF HEARING IS NOT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

The above provision of the law is very clear and plain. In no circumstance can it be interpreted that the date of hearing endorsed in Exhibit “A2” which is a date fixed by the court for the hearing of the substantive case is a privileged communication between counsel and client. This provision of the law is enacted for the protection of the client and not of counsel and is based on the impossibility of conducting legal business without professional assistance, and on necessity, in order to render that assistance effectual, of securing free and unreserved intercourse between the two. See Jones v. Great Central Railing (1910) AC 5. Privilege should not be invoked to subvert the machinery of justice.

— Ogwuegbu JSC. Oshunrinde v Akande (1996) – SC.110/1990

Was this dictum helpful?

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2024

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 795 | UO – 0 | GO – 574 | BO – 221

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.