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

illuminative legal authorities referred to therein by
the learned counsel.
In view of the crucial point raised therein, I have
deemed it not only expedient but also imperative to
first and foremost, deal with the issue No 6 raised
by both the Appellants' and Respondent's counsel in
the respective briefs thereof. As alluded to above,
the said issue raised by the Appellants in their brief
of argument which was adopted by the Respondent
is to the effect that:
"6- Whether in the circumstances of this case, the
trial which was conducted in the absence of the
defendants when the there was no proof of service
of hearing notice as ordered was proper and can be
allowed to stand."
It's also instructive that issue No6 inquestion is
distilled from ground No 8 of the amended grounds
of appeal. According to the appellants:
4.65. ISSUE 6
4.66. This issue relates to ground eight of the
amended grounds of appeal. The issue questions
the propriety of a trial conducted in the absence of
the appellants when they were not served with
hearing notice as ordered by the learned trial
judge.
As alluded to above, I have deemed it expedient to
deal with issue No 6 first, because service of
process, especially hearing notice on a party is
crucial and fundamental and thus intrinsic to the
jurisdiction of any court, be in the trial or appellate
court. It is undoubtedly trite, that failure to serve
court process where such a process is required is a
16