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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

That fortiori the judgment delivered by the learned trial judge on 30/11/91) is a miscarriage of justice and thus a nullity. Relying on the cases of ANUWAH TRANS (NIG) LTD v. OA TRANS (NIG.) LTD. (1998) 1 NWLR (part 555)619 at 690; ODUTOLA VS. KAYODE (1994) 2 NWLR (part 324) 1 at 22 et althe learned counsel urged this court to allow the appeal and set aside the.iudl3ment of the court below.On the other hand, the Respondent has in the briefthereof made copious references to the variousdates on which the matter came up before the trialcourt for trial. Most particular, paragraph 3.44 is tothe effect that: 3.44. On the said 29th April 1999, the court adjourned the suit in the presence of the 4th Defendant/Appellant, to the 15th and 16th days of June 1999 for definite hearing. See page 39 of the Record of Appeal. The Appellants deliberately omitted (sic) to state this fact in their Brief of Argument in order to hood-wink your Lordships. It is also the contention of the Respondent's learned counsel that: 3.50. From the above stated facts it is clear that the Defendants/Appellants deliberately abandoned their defence and kept away from the proceedings only to bring this frivolous Appeal in order to frustrate the execution of the judgment. He thus contended that the judgment of the trial court appealed against is not a nullity merely because the Defendants chose to keep away from the proceedings; they did so at their own peril. 19
See KADUNA TEXTILE MILLS LTD VS ALHAJI UMAR (1994) INWLR (part 317) 143 at 159 to the effect inter alia that a recalcitrant party who fails to attend court can not be allowed to hold the court at ransom as he can not benefit from his own default. See also EKRENII VS EFEIZOMIOR II (1993) 7 NWLR (part 307) 588.It is evident from the Records of the Trial court that(pages 38 and 39 of the Record) that even thoughthe 4th Defendant was indicated to have beenpresent in court on 29/4/99 there was nothing toshow that the necessary service of the hearing notices were effected on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Appellants vide their counsel who was absent on that date. What is more, on 15/6/99, the record of the trial court clearly' shows only the Respondent and his counsel C.J. Okoli - Akirika Esq. were present. The four Appellants and their counsel were absent. The Trial judge ordered thus: "Court: This matter fixed for today and tomorrow matter is therefore adjourned till tomorrow for definite hearing."Again, most unfortunately, there is nothing in the record at page 41 to indicate that the learned Trial judge had ordered for the service of a fresh hearing on the Appellants vide their counsel in short no.Most intriguingly, on 30/16/99 the Respondent filed a motion for leave to lead evidence and prove his claims against the Appellants in the lower court.The said motion was heard and granted on 27/7/99in the absence of the Appellants and their counsel. 20
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 10 and 11: P. J. Olayiwola Judge 13-4-99 From
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 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?