20/04/2025
*PARTICIPANT PROPERTIES LTD v. FASHOLA & ORS*
(2023) LPELR-60145(CA)
Principle
JUDGMENT AND ORDER - DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT -
*_Effect of a judgment delivered earlier than the adjourned date and/or in the absence of a party_*
"The Respondents submitted that hearing notice by way of counterpart electronic mails were served on the counsel for the parties against the judgment date.
I have combed through the Record of Appeal but couldn't come across a copy of such electronic mail hearing notice. What then is the fate of the judgment of the lower Court delivered on 18/03/2016 without proof that hearing notice was served on the Appellant? Before the delivery of judgment, the Appellant was given ample opportunity to ventilate its grievance before the lower Court by filing all relevant processes in support of its Originating Summons.
The Appellant was also afforded equal opportunity with the Respondents to adopt its processes, when the Originating Summons came up for hearing on 14/10/2015.
The only proceeding conducted in the absence of the Appellant was the delivery of judgment. Fair hearing entails giving each party to the proceeding equal opportunity to ventilate his/her grievances without hindrance before a decision is reached by the Court.
The Appellant was afforded that unhindered opportunity by the lower Court throughout the proceeding preceding the judgment.
The Appellant has not shown what injustice it suffered as a result of the delivery of judgment in its absence, that being the only yardstick that will entitle it to have the judgment set aside on account of nullity occasioned by denial of fair hearing.
In a similar situation, where a judgment was delivered earlier than the date it was adjourned to, without notification to the Appellant, the Supreme Court, per Galadima, JSC, held, in the case of Cotecna Int'l Ltd vs. Churchgate Nig. Ltd (2010) LPELR-897 (SC), as follows:
"It would appear to me and I am of the view that the delivery of judgment earlier than scheduled date without notice to the Appellant will not nullify the judgment unless the Appellant can show that it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The Appellant has not shown that any miscarriage of justice has occasioned because its counsel was not present when the judgment was read. It is not shown that if the Appellant's counsel had listened to the judgment which was delivered in the Open Court, the decision could have been otherwise.
The Appellant is not complaining that it was not heard when it ought to have been heard during the proceedings leading to Judgment. See VERITAS INS. CO. LTD v. CITI TRUST INVESTMENT LTD (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.281) 349 at 370, OBODO v. OLOMU (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.59) 111 and ESEIGBE v. AGHOLOR & ANOR (1990) 7 NWLR (pt.161) 234.
I hold that since the earlier and timely delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal has not occasioned any miscarriage of justice to the Appellant, in any way whatsoever, so as to nullify the said judgment, accordingly, I resolve this issue against the Appellant." In the earlier case of Veritas Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Citi Trust Investments Ltd (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.281) 349 @ 369-370, Niki Tobi, JCA, (as he then was), had this to say:
"What is the judgment vis-a-vis the role or roles of the parties in the judgment delivery process? I do not think I have made myself clear. Let me pose an ancillary question: What role does any of the parties play when a judgment is being delivered?
I think I now sound clearer. Parties and or their counsel sit in Court and listen to the judgment being delivered. They do not play any role beyond listening and at times taking down random notes in the course of the delivery of the judgment.
Some do not take notes. They just listen and leave the Court at the end of the judgment, with the usual clich Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA (Pp 30 - 34 Paras D - A)
