"The essence of pre-trial is to identify and delineate the boundaries of issues to be tried, at the hearing of the Suit and how to approach the trial by the Court, and after agreeing on the issues to be tried and the direction of the trial, it appears improper, wrong and unfair, in my view, to abandon the hearing of the case of the Plaintiff (the aggrieved) and entertain a technical point, introduced amply by the defence, meant to truncate the hearing of the Plaintiff's case, and to use it to determine the claim of the Plaintiff, without hearing him on his case!

In the case of Adegbuyi Esq. & Anor Vs Mustapha & Ors (2010) LPELR - 3600 CA, the essence of frontloading and pre-hearing was stated - that: "It affords the parties an opportunity... to object to certain documents at the earliest opportunity, to allow certain documents and/or to concede certain facts or issues, where appropriate." See also Onyedebelu Vs Nwaneri & Ors (2008) LPELR - 4793 (CA), where this Court per Saulawa JCA said (particularly in election petitions): "It may be reiterated that the essence of a pre-hearing session cannot be over emphasized. The process... enables both the Court and parties to scale down the areas of dispute by consenting on the important issues that require full investigation and trial.

The process also allows for summary disposal of matters..." See also Ali Vs NDIC (2014) LPELR - 22422 (CA) and Ikeyi Vs Crown Realities Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 144, where it was held that the pre-hearing, where successful, "reduces drastically a judges docket, thereby hopefully ensuring speedy conclusion of contested cases."

Per MBABA, J.C.A.IN NNAMELE & ORS v. NJOKU & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43987(CA)