LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fair Hearing — Ex Parte Applications — When Permissible — Section 33(1) of 1979 Constitution
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The right to fair hearing under Section 33(1) of the Constitution is not infringed by an ex parte application where the application does not involve a determination of the civil rights and obligations of any person. Applications seeking merely to preserve property pending determination of ownership, or seeking an extension of time, may properly be moved ex parte.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Provisional Liquidator of Tapp Industries Limited v. Tapp Industries Limited (1995) NLC-2281991(SC) at pp. 23–30; Paras. B–C, D–A.
"The right to fair hearing under Section 33(1) of the Constitution is not infringed by an ex parte application where the application does not involve a determination of the civil rights and obligations of any person. Where an application seeks merely to preserve property pending determination of ownership, or seeks an extension of time to complete an assignment, and does not seek to determine any contentious issue affecting the rights of parties, it may properly be moved ex parte. The rules of court expressly provide for ex parte applications, and such provisions are not unconstitutional."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Ex parte applications are permissible when they do not determine civil rights. Preservative orders and extensions of time are examples. The principle applies to all proceedings. The court may grant ex parte relief in urgent cases. The affected party may later apply to vary or discharge. The rules of court are not unconstitutional. The right to fair hearing is not absolute in every procedural step. The principle balances urgency with fairness. The court will ensure that final determinations are made after hearing parties.
