STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. L.G.C. LTD. (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 361
ON WHAT CONSTITUTES FAIR HEARING
Fair hearing, simpliciter, is an opportunity given to a party in a matter to be heard on the merit.
Fair hearing does not contemplate that every single strand of issue must be itemised independently and decided upon. It does not mean that fair hearing has become a weapon of witty invention to bamboozle the court and/or the other party into the whims and caprices of legal practitioners.
The fair hearing provision in the Constitution is the machinery or locomotive of justice, not a spare part to propel or invigorate the case of the user. It is not a casual principle of law available to a party to be picked up at will in a case and force the court to apply it to his advantage.
On the contrary, it is a formidable and fundamental constitutional provision available to a party who is really denied fair hearing because he was not heard or that he was not properly heard in the case.
Litigants who have nothing useful to advocate in favour of their cases must leave the fair hearing constitutional provision alone because it is not available to them just for the asking.
A court must be wary when a counsel comes up with the issue of denial of fair hearing, especially when it borders on the whole proceedings. This is because many lawyers hide and seek solace under the domain to have the court’s proceedings nullified.
In the instant case, there was no semblance of denial of fair hearing to the appellant.
[John v. State (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 160 referred to.]
(Pp. 410, paras. C-G; 411, paras. D-E)
AFRIBANK (NIG.) PLC V. C.B.N. (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 255
ON NATURE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO COMMENCE DERIVATIVE ACTION AND NEED TO ENSURE FAIR HEARING IN DETERMINATION THEREOF
An application for leave to commence a derivative action is not a mere formality. It is a process that requires the court to make an active determination with stated benchmark for reaching such determination. In making such a determination regarding the interest of the Directors, fair hearing demands that such Directors should be put on notice. An order which has the effect of stripping the Directors of their statutory right must be one in respect of which they should be given the right to be heard before it is made as their civil rights and obligations would be affected. Consequently, it is right to give them fair hearing as enshrined in section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
(Pp. 290, paras. F-H; 291, paras. E-G)
BAGUDU V. KYAUTA (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 379 S.C
ON WHETHER FAILURE OF COURT TO DETERMINE SUPERFLUOUS ISSUE AMOUNTS TO BREACH OF FAIR HEARING
A court’s failure to consider an issue which has become superfluous cannot amount to a breach of fair hearing of a party as pronouncing on it is an exercise in futility and failure to do so cannot have any effect on the decision of the court. In this case, the appellant was afforded the right to fair hearing in the determination of the earlier appeal on the same issues and subject matter to both appeals to factually make repeating the said determination in the later appeal, unnecessary. Thus, the failure of the Court of Appeal to resolve and determine the issues raised for determination in the appeal on the merits did not breach the right of the appellant to fair hearing. Accordingly, the sole issue for determination in this appeal is resolved against the appellant. [Agbakoba v. I.N.E.C. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489; I.N.E.C. v. Atuma (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 494 referred.] (Pp. 400, paras. E-H; 402, paras. A-C)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON WHAT PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING DEMANDS
The principle of fair hearing demands that both parties should address the court on any significant issues impacting on the outcome of their matter, especially where such issues pertain to the evidence relied upon in rendering a decision.
The significance of issue one in the instant appeal lay in the principle that the right to fair hearing encompasses an opportunity for the parties, through their counsel, to address the court on fundamental material issues that impact on the proceedings.
In the instant appeal, the records before the Supreme Court revealed that exhibit “A” was part of the records of the trial court and was not in dispute by either party at the trial stage. The question of its authenticity and admissibility was not raised by the appellant in the proceedings at the Customary Court of Appeal.
In departing from the established record, the Customary Court of Appeal should have permitted arguments from both parties before ruling on the probative value of exhibit “A” and deciding that it was a fictitious document. The failure to provide the parties with the opportunity contravened the principles of fair hearing and impartial adjudication.
The findings of the Customary Court of Appeal regarding exhibit “A”s non-admissibility and questionable origin were made without notice to the parties and therefore lacking in legal justification. The said decision exemplified breach of judicial impartiality having based same on the rejection of exhibit A not on any question in dispute raised by the parties but on an independent judgment about the authenticity of the document.
The evaluation by the Customary Court of Appeal was not an assessment of the probative value of exhibit “A” within the evidential context but rather an outright dismissal, unsupported by the parties’ argument. Such an approach was detrimental as it deprived the respondent of an opportunity to present counterarguments or validate the admissibility of the evidence.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal rightly and correctly identified the procedural lacuna by the Customary Court of Appeal in disregarding exhibit “A” without inviting addresses from counsel. The grievous omission by the court amounted to a denial of fair hearing.
(Pp. 617–619, paras. F–A; paras. E–D)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
The right to fair hearing is a very fundamental and an integral right in adjudication. Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, (as amended) provides that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.
(P. 626, paras. B–D)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON EFFECT OF COURT RAISING ISSUE SUO MOTU WITHOUT AFFORDING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
The parties’ right to address the court on issues arising suo motu is fundamental. A failure to observe this right results in a denial of fair hearing, which is a constitutionally protected right.
While a court may raise an issue of law on its own motion, it must allow the parties to be heard to maintain the neutrality and transparency required of the court.
[Obumseli v. Uwakwe (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 55; Victino Fixed Odds Ltd. v. Odo (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 486 referred to.]
(P. 618, paras. A–C)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON TREATMENT OF DECISION OF COURT ON ISSUE RAISED SUO MOTU WITHOUT HEARING THE PARTIES
The failure to allow a party to address on an issue raised suo motu does not automatically necessitate a reversal of judgment unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. This perspective maintains that unless the appellant demonstrates how the denial affected the outcome, it should not invalidate the decision. However, the importance of address of counsel cannot be undermined, especially where the document in question forms a crucial part of the judgment of the trial court.
[Effiom v. C.R.S.I.E.C. (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1213) 106 referred to.]
(P. 618, paras. C–E)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON DUTY OF COURT WHERE IT RAISES ISSUE SUO MOTU AND EXCEPTIONS THERETO
Justice never allows one-sided approach in its dispensation. When an issue is raised, the other party must be given a chance to choose to reply.
When a court raises an issue suo motu, the law generally requires that the parties be given an opportunity to be heard. There are, however, exceptions which have been identified by the Supreme Court in a plethora of cases. The need to give the parties a hearing where a judge raises an issue on his own motion or suo motu would not be necessary if:
(a) the issue related to the court’s own jurisdiction; and
(b) both parties are/were not aware or ignore a statute which may have bearing on the case. That is, to say, where by virtue of statutory provision, the Judge is expected to take judicial notice.
In the instant appeal, the issue of the probative value and the integrity of exhibit A was not before the court. The Customary Court of Appeal suo motu raised it and thereby used it to regard exhibit A non-admissible and that it was of a questionable origin. This was a landmine of injustice perpetrated.
The appropriate step in the interest of justice was for the court to invite the parties to address it on that vital issue. Therefore, the right of the respondent to fair hearing was truly breached as found by the Court of Appeal.
[Owners of the MT Marigold v. NNPC (2022) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1828) 165 referred to.]
(Pp. 626–627, paras. E–C)
OMBUGADU V. ALHAJI [2024] 7 NWLR (PT. 1936) 73
ON REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR HEARING
The principle of fair hearing enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution demands that every party to a cause or matter has the right to be heard before a decision is given affecting him or his interest. He is not only entitled to a hearing; he is entitled to a fair hearing. The principle of fair hearing is one of the twin pillars of natural justice, to wit: audi alteram partem, which means let the other side be heard and nemo dat in causa sua, which means a man cannot be a judge in his own cause. [Zenith Plastics Ind. Ltd. v. Samotech Ltd. (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1620) 165; Duke v. Govt., Cross River State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356)347 referred to.] (P. 96, paras. D-F).
OMBUGADU V. ALHAJI [2024] 7 NWLR (PT. 1936) 73
ON DUTY ON COURT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE APPLICATION BEFORE IT
A court is duty bound to consider and determine the merit of any application brought before it, notwithstanding the perceived strength or weakness thereof. The principle of fair hearing as enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution demands and establishes that all parties must be heard for proper determination of their case. Any breach of the principle will naturally nullify the proceedings. So, an application may not necessarily have merit, it may even be frivolous. Once it is shown that there is some legal basis for the application, the court is bound to hear it. It is not optional or discretional. In the instant case, the trial tribunal did not determine the 1st respondent’s application on its merit. The 1st respondent’s right to fair hearing was breached at the stage when the application was summarily dismissed. [Odedo v. P.D.P. (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt.1476) 229; Mobil Prod. (Nig.) Unltd. v. Monokpo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 346 referred to.] (Pp. 96-97, paras. H-C).
REGD. TRUSTEES, MISSION HOUSE V. A.S.T.B. PLC [2024]10 NWLR (PT. 1947) 565
ON EFFECT WHERE COURT MAKES FINDING AGAINST PARTY ON ISSUE IT RAISED SUO MOTU WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEREON
Where a court makes a finding against a party on an issue it raised suo motu without according the party the opportunity to address it on the point, the finding amounts to breaching the party’s right to fair hearing enshrined in section 36(1) of the 1999, Constitution (as amended). And the fundamental right to fair hearing is important to the administration of justice. Where a court, after hearing argument of counsel, deems it expedient that the matter before it can in fact be decided on a technical point upon which it has not been addressed, then it behooves the court to invite the counsel to address it thereupon. It is after so acting that a court should adjudicate on the technical point taken by the court itself particularly when the defect, if there is one, could be cured if the court, in its discretion, gives leave to amend.
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON OPERATION OF DOCTRINE OF FAIR HEARING IN EMPLOYMENT MATTERS
The doctrine of fair hearing stipulates that the employee must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him/her and must have the opportunity to face his/her accusers. Also, the persons sitting in the investigative panel should not be the same persons as his or her accusers. Where these have not been observed, the employee cannot be said to have been afforded fair hearing before the dismissal, therefore rendering the dismissal wrongful. In the instant case, the respondent was not afforded fair hearing by the appellant who reviewed the case and reviewed the punishment upward by dismissing the respondent summarily. The failure of the appellant to invite and hear the respondent when his case was being reviewed was a violation of his rights to fair hearing. Hence his dismissal amounted to wrongful dismissal. (Pp. 36-37, paras. G-F).