CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IMO STATE & ANOR. V. GODWIN ...

that the party was entitled to be heard before, a
decision was reached but was not given opportunity
of hearing the order or judgment thus entered is
bound to be set aside."
See also KOTOYE V. CBN (1989) NWLR (part 98)
419; ATANO V. AG. BENDEL STATE (1988) 2 NWLR
(part 75) 201; NTUKDEM V. OKO (1986) 5 NWLR
(part 45) 909. Thus, in the light of the foregoing
postulations. I have no hesitation whatsoever in h
preliminary objection is unmeritorious and it's
accordingly hereby discountenanced.
Having contrasted the 3 issue formulated by the
Appellants Brief with those of the Respondents, I
have had very little, in any, difficulty in
appreciating that they are not at all at cross
purposes. I have thus deemed it appropriate to
adopt 3 issues formulated by the Appellants for the
purpose of determining this appeal; after all it's
their own appeal. See GUDA V. KITTA (1991) 12
NWLR (Part 629) 21.
ISSUE NO 1:
"Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that
this is a proper case for order of certiorari and that
the letters Exhibit AG8 and AG6 of Exhibit B are
hereby quashed"
It is said that this issue covers ground one of the
Grounds of Appeal.
Reference was made by the learned Appellants
counsel to sections 207 and 318 of the
1gggconstitution (supra) conferring delegatory
powers to the 1st Appellant and defining the term
19