Constitutional Law (401)
HELD:
"Section 4 of the Nigerian Communication (Enforcement Processes, etc) Regulation, 2005 on which the cross-appellant relied to argue that the cross-respondent has no locus standi and that only the NCC is vested with the right of action for breach of the law or any subsidiary law and an action for injunction, specific performance and tort reads:
HELD:
"In T.M. ORUGBO & ANOR v. BULARA UNA & ORS (2002) FWLR Pt. 127 1024; (2002) 9 SCNJ 12; (2002) 9-10 S.C.61, the Supreme Court stated, that it has become a fashion for litigants to resort to their right to fair hearing on appeal as if it is a magic wand to cure all their inadequacies at the trial Court.
HELD:
"Where an appeal, as in the instant case, is heard on the brief of one of the parties alone, allegation of breach of right to fair hearing must satisfy from the record that the right was indeed breached.
HELD:
"...The implication of all that I have been saying, is that the Appellant, had knowledge of the pendency of the appeal, and failed to take requisite steps.
HELD:
"It is a fundamental requirement of our adversarial system of administration of justice, that a party to the litigation before the Court must be heard before the Court can determine his civil rights or obligations before it.
HELD:
"I will now consider the provisions of the Sections of the Constitution that this suit relates.
HELD:
"Earlier decisions of this Court also provide basis for the resolution of the 2nd issue for the determination of the merit of the instant claim.