Facts:

Facts:
The respondent filed an action at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division in which
it sought to recover from the appellant the sum of N14,100,000.00 (Fourteen Million
One Hundred Thousand Naira) alleged to be outstanding to its credit on two
contracts entered into with the appellant for the supply and installation of
telecommunication equipment. The appellant entered a conditional appearance
and filed its statement of defence alleging that it was the respondent that breached
the contract between the parties. The appellant also filed a notice of preliminary
objection on the ground that the matter is a simple contract and as such the
Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and hear same. The appellant
also filed a motion praying the court for extension of time within which to file its
motion on notice challenging the court’s jurisdiction, having failed to file within the
time allowed by the Rules.
The respondent opposed both applications and after hearing both parties, the trial
court dismissed the motion on the ground that since the application was filed out
of time, it can only be taken at the conclusion of trial in line with the Rules of
court.
The appellant and its counsel were absent on the 4th day of April, 2012 when trial
in the matter commenced. The respondent’s sole witness gave evidence and matter
was thereafter, adjourned. The appellant was also not present at the next adjourned
date but the court could not sit and adjourned to a later date. On the next adjourned
date which was for cross examination, the appellant was unrepresented as it was
not served with a hearing notice of the new date. The matter was adjourned again
without the court ordering service of hearing notice to be issued and served on the
appellant. The appellant’s right to cross examination was foreclosed on the next
adjourned date and another day was fixed for defence to open it case. Appellant
was yet again absent on the next adjourned date for defence since it was not
served with a hearing notice. The case of the appellant was then declared closed
and a date was fixed for adoption of final written address.
On the day of adoption of final written address, court insisted that it must see
proof of service of date for adoption of final written address, and adjourned when it
became clear that the appellant was not served. The respondent thereafter caused
the hearing notice to be served on the appellant. The respondent, upon being
served with the written address, filed a motion on notice seeking leave of the court
to open its defence and recall the respondent’s sole witness for cross examination.
The court went ahead to adopt the written address of the respondent in spite of the
pending application of the appellant and without proof of service of hearing notice.
The court then adjourned for judgment.
The court gave judgment in favour of the respondent and dismissed the appellant’s
application as being incompetent for not seeking an extension of time to file same.
The appellant was aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal
praying the court to overrule the trial court. One of the issues distilled for
determination is whether in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was
accorded fair hearing by the learned trial judge.