POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. V. MR. MAC-CAJETAN AGBASI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

P. J. Olayiwola Judge 13-4-99 From the above quotations, it is clear that on the 13-4-99 when the suit came up before the trial Judge, the appellants were absent including their counsel: and therefore the learned trial Judge adjourned the case to 29-04-99 and clearly ordered a fresh hearing notice to be served on the appellants. Since then, there were several adjournments and the Appellants were absent on all the occasions and on 22-7-99 the same court granted the respondent leave to prove his case. Learned counsel for the respondent had also informed the court that on different occasions, the court had ordered fresh hearing notice on the appellants, but alleged that the appellants had failed to turn up. I have carefully perused and considered the proceedings of the trial court on pages 39 - 41 and page 45. These pages have shown that on 29-4-99, the trial Judge simply said "This matter is adjourned to 15th and 16th June 1999 for definite hearing." This shows that there was no "fresh hearing notice to be served on the appellants" as claimed by learned counsel for respondent. On 15-6-99, the same trial judge merely said - "This matter is fixed for today and tomorrow, matter is therefore adjourned till tomorrow for definite hearing." It is therefore failure to serve hearing notice of service on the appellants. Still on 16-6-99, the same Judge said as follows: 9
('This matter is adjourned to 5th July 1999 for definite hearing." This is a further proof that the learned trial Judge did not specifically made an order of service of hearing notice on the appellants. When the respondent's counsel was in court on 5-7-99, he asked for a short adjournment to serve a motion on notice. Still the trial court granted the application for hearing of the motion papers and adjourned it to 22-7-99 without specific order to issue fresh hearing notice on the appellants except the proceedings made on 13-4-99. But not only that a fresh hearing notice is to be served. There must be a conclusive proof that the court's bailiff had served the party(ies) in question. The proof of service is the return hearing notice in which the recipient of the hearing notice is to state the name, rank, date, time and signature on the back of the hearing notice. Where the counter hearing notice is refused to be served, the court's bailiff has the duty to swear to an affidavit that the party had refused to accept hearing notice. All reasonable courts of record are enjoined to rely on proofs of services of hearing notice on parties before hearing of the proceeding. In the instant appeal despite so numerous adjournments for hearing, the learned trial Judge woefully failed to make fresh hearing notices on the appellants; and where such order was made, the lower court did not deem it necessary to demand and see or look at the requisite proof of service on the appellants. The assertion by learned counsel for 10
Page 2 and 3: POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. V. MR. M
Page 4 and 5: "It is well settled law that, once
Page 6 and 7: 6 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SERVICE
Page 8 and 9: 6. Whether in the circumstances of
Page 12 and 13: the respondent that there were proo
Page 14 and 15: account for their (sic) where about
Page 16 and 17: on 22/3/2005 and raised therein six
Page 18 and 19: fundamental defect. Thus, absence o
Page 20 and 21: That fortiori the judgment delivere
Page 22 and 23: There was as usual no proof that th
Page 24: NWANKWO (2003) 9 NWLR (part 826) 59

POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. V. MR. MAC-CAJETAN AGBASI

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?