“Again from the record and in line with the practice for an intermediate court, the Court below having determined the issue of jurisdiction had proceeded to determine all the issues submitted to it by the appellant including the issue of the contempt on the merit. See Adah v NYSC(2004)All FWLR (Pt. 223) 1850; Ojoh v Kamalu (2005) 18 NWLR(Pt. 958) 556; FMH VCSA Ltd (2009)9 NWLR(Pt. 1145) 193 at 220 – 221; Benson v COP(2016)LPELR – 40439(SC).
To highlight what I am labouring to put across is to call in aid some dicta of this court thus:-Uzuda v Ebigah (2009) All FWLR (Pt.493) 1224 at 1247.
… Where a court falls to give full consideration and determination of the case of a party, it is a situation touching on the violation of the party’s right to fair hearing. It is trite that where there is a breach of a party’s constitutional right of fair hearing, then, the proceedings are vitiated, thereby requiring the intervention of an appellate court on complaint of the affected party.
Also in Bayol v Ahemba (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.623) 381 it was held that:
It has been said time without number that the judgment of a court must demonstrate a full dispassionate consideration of the issues raised and canvassed before it. This duty on the court is imperative otherwise it will be extremely difficult for a party whose case has not been accorded adequate and full consideration to accept that justice has been done to him by PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C., in
