CIVIL PROCEDURE — Adjournment — Refusal of Adjournment — When Trial Court May Refuse
Ratio Decidendi
Per Muntaka-Coomassie, JSC, in Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority & Anor (2010) NLC-123-299-2006(SC) at p. 8, para. E – p. 9, para. A:
"When a case has been fixed for hearing the trial court must ensure the hearing of the case except if a party applying for adjournment showed sufficient reason why the case must be adjourned, that is, by placing sufficient materials before the court upon which it can exercise its discretion, otherwise, an adjournment of a case fixed for hearing would mean further delay to the other litigants who might otherwise have had their cases heard."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that once a case is fixed for hearing, the trial court must proceed unless the party applying for adjournment shows sufficient reason by placing sufficient materials before the court. The principle applies where adjournment is sought. It ensures that hearings proceed without unnecessary delay. The principle reflects the need to avoid delaying other litigants. It prevents frivolous adjournment requests. The court must exercise discretion based on sufficient materials. The principle provides guidance on when adjournment may be refused.