"The Appellant the instant appeal from the record before us was the Judgment Debtor at the Lower Court. The judgment was entered by the Rivers State High Court, Port Harcourt. Earlier in this judgment a poser was raised as to why the judgment was taken from Rivers State to Akwa Ibom State for enforcement. Under Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by Courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively.

This therefore approves of a decision of the Rivers State High Court being enforced by the Akwa Ibom State High Court. But there is something peculiar and distinct in the instant case. In the instant case, before the matter was taken to Akwa Ibom State High Court the Appellant/Judgment Debtor had filed processes at the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division over this case. There, an application for stay of execution was filed. It sounds more logical for one to expect that the Respondents should wait and take all the necessary steps of enforcement or execution of the judgment before that Court. But, the situation is different here. The Respondents left the case in this Court at the Port Harcourt Division of this Court to start a Garnishee Proceedings before the Akwa Ibom State High Court sitting at Eket. The Appellant now said he filed a motion to object to the competence of the process but he was denied a hearing by the Court below and that this Court should enforce the right of fair hearing by voiding the decision of the Akwa Ibom State High Court in this matter.

I am not in doubt about the current position of the law in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC VS. DUMUJE (2015) (supra) relied upon by the Appellant. The position of this Court to paraphrase it, is that the judgment Debtor in a Garnishee Proceedings who is served with a Garnishee Order nisi is not an observer or a cheerleader in the contest. He is a necessary party who should have a say. The whole idea behind serving the Garnishee Order nisi on the Judgment Debtor is to find out whether all is well with the processes as to lead the Court to issue out an order absolute. The argument of the Respondents that the Appellant has no locus is with due respect not the law. In fact, it is the Judgment Debtor and not the Garnishee that is just keeping the money in her custody that is responsible for paying the judgment debt.

The obligation to pay judgment debt is that of the Judgment Debtor and when Garnishee Proceedings is taken, it is aimed at the money of the Judgment Debtor in the custody of the Garnishee. It follows therefore that the Judgment Debtor is a necessary party and must be given an audience during the hearing of the Garnishee Proceedings. In the instant case, the Appellant canvassed that the motion she filed on 18th July, 2006 to draw the attention of the trial Court to the fact that the Garnishee Proceeding was an abuse of the process of the Court was not heard by the Lower Court before Garnishee Order was made absolute. The right to be heard in any case that is before the Court is guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This Section 36(1) of the Constitution gorgeously stipulates that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a Court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.

If the fundamental rights provided under Chapter IV of the Constitution are to be calibrated the right to fair hearing will rank higher than all the other rights. The reason is because the right to fair hearing is ingrained in the soul of a human. In the case of TORRI VS. THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OF NIGERIA (2011) LPELR-8142 (SC) the Supreme Court per Muhammad, JSC held that: "The right to fair hearing it should be noted is an extreme fundamental right in our Constitution. It is indispensable in any fair trial. It is an inalienable right of the accused. It is however, not an abstract principle. It entails a trial conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Natural justice in its broad sense is justice done in circumstances which are just, equitable and impartial.

It is one ingrained in that procedure followed in the determination of a case and not in the correctness of the decision. See THE STATE VS. ONAGORUWA (1992) 2 NWLR (PART 221) 33; KIM VS. THE STATE (1992) 4 NWLR (PART 233) 17." The right requires the observance of the twin pillars of the Rules of Natural justice namelya. Audi alteram partem that is hear the other side. b. Nemo judex in causa sua that is, no one should be a judge in his own cause. It is a basic principle of law that where a person's legal rights or obligations are called into questions, he should be accorded full opportunity to be heard before any adverse decision is taken against him with regard to such rights or obligations. Put differently, it is an indispensable requirement of justice that an adjudicating authority, to be fair and just shall hear both sides, giving them ample opportunity to present their case. See GUKAS VS. JOS INT. BREWERIES LTD. (1991) 6 NWLR (PT. 199) 614 @ PAGE 623; ALHAJI MOHAMMED & ANOR. VS. LASISI OLAWUNMI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 133) 458 @ PAGE 485; OLUMESAN VS. OGUNDEPO (1996) LPELR-2625 (SC). The principles of fair hearing are:

1. That the Court shall hear both sides to a case and also must consider the case of both parties too.
2. That the Court must also hear all material issues before reaching its decision which may be prejudicial to any party in the case.

• That Court must give equal treatment opportunity to all the parties. iv. That the proceedings shall be held in public and all concerned shall have access and be informed of such place of public hearing.

1. In every material decision of the case, justice must be seen to have been manifestly done and not merely done. See DARMA VS. ECOBANK NIG. LTD. (2017) LPELR-41663 (SC) per Sanusi, JSC. This right to fair hearing must at all times be construed in the light of the facts of the case alone.

A party who raises the allegation of the breach of this right must undoubtedly show from the facts of the case that the right is violated. ?In the instant case, at page 132 of the Record is the motion filed at the Lower Court on 18th July, 2006. The main relief on the face of this motion is for AN ORDER striking out this suit on the ground that the Garnishee proceedings is an abuse of Court process having regard to Appeal No. CA/PH/182M/2005: MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. UNLTD. VS. ALEYE IWO & ORS. It is undeniably correct that this motion was filed on the day the application to make the order nisi absolute was to be considered by the Lower Court. It is certainly not an encouraging practice for a counsel to file a motion in the morning of the hearing of a case by the Court and frustrate the hearing. Where however this happens; the remedy under the Rules of the Court is to award heavy cost.

It cannot be used as a licence to ignore the motion validly filed by a party for consideration. If the Registry indicates on the process that it was filed, the onus is on the Court to hear the application. If for any reason the motion could not be considered that day, it is in the interest of the right of the Appellant to fair hearing for the motion to be adjourned. The Record of the proceedings of the Lower Court of the 18th July, 2006 is at page 138 of the Record of Appeal. The Record reads: Holden at Eket On Tuesday 18th July, 2006 Before His Lordship: Hon. Justice Enefiok Udoh Suit No. HEK/ MISC. 30/2006 ALAYE I. IWO & 3 ORS. - Judgt. Creditor/Applicant VS. MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. UNLTD. - Judgt. Debtor/Respondent VS. UBA PLC - Garnishee Applicants absent. Respondent absent. Garnishee absent. C. J. Nduka says that the Garnishee has filed no processes.

He therefore prays me to make the Order Nisi become Order Absolute. RULING I hereby enter Order Absolute in favour of the Applicant in this case in the sum of N17,014,508.00 in respect of the Respondent's account with the Garnishee. Sgd. Enefiok Udoh Judge This record is clean and it bears testimony of the fact that Mr. A. C. Ndadi was recorded as representing this Appellant who is the Judgment Debtor. After C. J. Nduka informed the Court on record that the Garnishee filed no processes. The learned trial Judge did not hear the counsel for the Appellant before he gave the Order absolute. The record has confirmed that counsel for the Appellant was not heard and no evidence that the motion he filed was heard. In the case of NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD. VS. ATTA (2006) LPELR-1986 (SC), Tobi JSC held that the State of the law is that a Court must hear a motion or any process before it, however unmeritorious.

A Court should not ignore a motion or process before it and give a decision one way or the other without considering the motion or process. That is good and valid law. This law I must say has not yet changed, it can never change. The right to be heard is a very fundamental principle of the adversarial system of administration of justice in this country. Failure of the Lower Court to consider the motion filed by the Appellants on 18th July, 2006 is a fundamental breach of the entrenched right of the Appellant to fair hearing. The repercussion of this is to nullify the proceedings of the Lower Court in favour of the Appellant who is the victim of this fundamental breach."

Per ADAH, J.C.A. IN MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLTD v. IWO & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44313(CA)