"The lower Court by doing this in my considered view did not accord the giving of final addresses by parties, the primacy, or pre-eminence, or importance that has in recent times being accorded the same being a constitutional right. See in this regard the cases of OYEKAN V. AKINRINWA (1996) LPELR-2871(SC);ISEZUO V. SANNI (supra); GITTO COSTRUZIONI GENERALI NIGERIA LTD V. ETUK (2013) LPELR - 20817 (CA); and ADEGBOYE V. SALAWU (2013) LPELR-22140(CA) amongst many others.

In the instant case, it is not obvious on the face of the record that the lower Court averted its mind at all to the fact that parties were constitutionally entitled to final addresses. The said Court if it had averted its mind to this, and actually appreciated the fact that final addresses by parties is another stage in the hearing of a case, ought to have adjourned for that purpose (given the fact that it proceeded to conclude the Respondents' case in the absence of the Appellant and his counsel) and directed that hearing notice should issue on the Appellant.

The bottom line from all that has been said above, is that irrespective of whether or not the lower Court remanded the Appellant's counsel to prison for contempt in order to intimidate him and thereby make him lose proper grip of the Appellant's case and or whether or not the lower Court descended into the arena as alleged by the Appellant, the lower Court has glaringly breached the Appellant's right to fair hearing having not entertained and disposed of two pending motions (and which are thereby still live in the Court's case file) and by not affording the Appellant any opportunity to deliver a final address in the case."

Per LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.in OPARA v. MORECAB FINANCE LTD & ANOR CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43990(CA)