CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ā Fair Hearing ā Waiver of Right to be Heard
Principle Statement
Where a party voluntarily decided to opt out of his disciplinary trial, he has himself to blame for his failure to attend. He was warned that proceedings might proceed in his absence, yet he refused to appear. He has no mouth to claim denial of fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Okike v. LPDC (2005) NLC-582004(SC) at pp. 21ā22; Paras EāA.
"Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, I cannot find any violation of the right of fair hearing meted out against the appellant. As mentioned while discussing issue No.1, the appellant voluntarily decided to opt out of his disciplinary trial. He has himself to blame for his failure to attend the proceedings. He was warned on several occasions that the proceedings might proceed in his absence, yet he refused to appear. In my view, the appellant has no mouth to claim that he was denied fair hearing."
Explanation / Scope
A party who voluntarily absents himself after warning waives his right to claim denial of fair hearing. Such a party cannot later complain of unfairness. The principle applies to constitutional law and procedure. The rule prevents tactical absence followed by complaints of denial of hearing. The tribunal may proceed in absentia after adequate warning. The absentee assumes the risk of adverse decision.
