The appellate court presided over by Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur in an unanimous judgment held that NICON could not complain that its rights to fair hearing were breached because its counsel was present when Ecobank’s lawyer, Kunle Ogunba (SAN) argued the application at the lower court.
NICON, as part of its grounds for filing the appeal, argued that it raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of certain unmarked and uncertified documents relied on by Ecobank, and that Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke had adjourned for ruling.
The court also argued that “It was the preliminary objection of the appellant that was argued and adjourned for ruling at the lower court and not the substantive suit.
“But, to the utter bewilderment of the appellant, on 5th of May 2014, the lower court, instead of delivering a ruling on the preliminary objection raised by the appellant, went ahead and gave judgment to the respondent as per its writ of summons, when the substantive suit was neither argued by parties nor heard by the court.”
Based on this argument, the appellant urged the appeal court to determine “whether entering summary judgment in favour of the respondent by the trial court in its ruling in respect of the preliminary objection filed by the appellant, without allowing the appellant to defend the suit on the merit does not amount to a gross violation of the appellant’s right to fair hearing.”
NICON also asked the appellate court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the lower court.
But the appeal court resolved all the issues in favour of the respondent holding that “It naturally follows that the appeal should be and is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit.”
Two other justices – Rita Pemu and Chinwe Iyizoba – concurred. Justice Pemu said NICON neglected to deliver a written notice of defence and affidavit within the stipulated time by the rules of court.
