EX-PARTE ORDER

• Date: 06 February 2019

"In Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 517, Ex-parte is defined as meaning ‘On one side only; by or for one party; done for on behalf of or on the application of, one party only.’ The dictionary continues: - "A judicial proceeding, order, injunction, etc is said to be ex-parte when it is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or contestation by any person adversely interested." The Black’s Law Dictionary goes on and says that an Ex- parte hearing is a hearing "in which the Court or Tribunal hears only one side of the controversy." It defines Ex-parte proceedings as "Any judicial or quasi-judicial hearing in which only one party is heard as in the case of temporary restraining order." (Italics mine for emphasis) In Curzon’s Dictionary of Law, Page 129 ex- parte is defined as ‘on behalf of.’ An ex-parte injunction (qr) is granted after hearing only one party and in a case of great urgency. See Bates v. Lord Hailsham of Marylebone (1972) 1 W.L.R. 1373. From the above definitions of the expression Ex-parte is deduceable that in an Ex-parte proceeding only one side to the contest is heard. An order made after hearing only one side without notice to the other side or "Contestation by any person adversely interested" becomes an Ex-parte order. From the facts of this matter as shown by Exh. AOJ/1 and paragraph 8 of the counter- affidavit of Vincent Onyekachi Ene, was the order of the lower Court made on the 9th February, 1994 made ex-parte? The following facts emerge from the exhibit and counter affidavit: (I) The respondent was present through his counsel S. Chime Esq. (II) The respondents counsel said that he was opposing the application to discharge the order of service of the writ on Mr. Mogboh "vehemently" (III) Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit...