LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Fair Hearing — Right to Cross-Examination — Effect of Voluntary Absence from Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Parties who voluntarily opt out of trial despite adequate notice of the hearing date cannot complain of denial of the right to cross-examine; there can be no better notification than that communicated in open court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Salami, JCA, as adopted by Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Jonason Triangles Ltd. v. Charles Moh & Partners Ltd. (2002) NLC-1561999(SC) at p. 9; Paras D–E.
"The appellants by their conduct have voluntarily opted out of the trial because they had adequate information of the hearing date, the venue of trial and had adequate time to react to the order granting adjournment but they chose to keep mute. Surely there can be no better notification to parties than the one communicated to them personally in the open court as it is the case in the present appeal."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party who voluntarily absents himself from trial cannot complain of denial of fair hearing. The court is not required to compel a party to attend. Notice communicated in open court is sufficient. The principle applies where the party had adequate notice and time to react. The right to cross-examine is waived by voluntary absence. The court may proceed in the party’s absence. The rule promotes efficiency and prevents abuse. The party cannot sabotage the trial and then claim unfairness. The court will not allow a party to benefit from self-induced absence. The principle applies to both plaintiffs and defendants.
