LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Nullity of Proceedings – Hearing on a Date Fixed for Mention
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It has been held that it is wrong for a Judge to treat a date fixed for mention of a case as one for hearing; any judgment entered contrary to this amounts to a nullity.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"It has been held by this court that it is wrong for a Judge to treat a date fixed for mention of a case as one for hearing; any judgment entered contrary to this amounts to a nullity."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Court dates serve distinct purposes: (1) Mention: Case management—checking status, giving directions, fixing hearing dates; parties expect no substantive hearing. (2) Hearing: Substantive adjudication—taking evidence, hearing arguments, making final orders. Treating mention as hearing violates fair notice because: parties don’t prepare for substantive hearing, witnesses aren’t summoned, and parties may not attend (sending juniors for administrative mention). Judgments entered on mention dates are nullities—void for lack of fair hearing. The nullity is fundamental: parties were denied hearing opportunity, procedures were violated, and the judgment has no legal effect. This protection ensures: parties receive fair notice of hearing dates, adequate preparation time, and opportunity to present cases fully. Judges must respect the distinction: using mention for case management only, and only hearing substantively on properly fixed hearing dates. Parties can rely on mention designation—if the notice says “mention,” they’re entitled to expect no substantive hearing occurs