Navigating Courtrooms: The Crucial Difference Between Mention, Hearing & Adjournment
FOR many Nigerians, stepping into a courtroom can be an intimidating experience, especially when terms like “mention,” “hearing,” and “adjournment” are used interchangeably—or worse, misunderstood. Legal analysts stress that understanding these terms is crucial for anyone navigating the justice system.
A “mention” is the court’s way of taking stock of a case. No witnesses are called, no evidence is presented, and there is no full trial. It is essentially an administrative check-in: the judge or magistrate verifies whether lawyers are ready, documents are filed, and parties are properly served. Legal experts liken it to attendance-taking—important for case management but not decisive in itself.
A “hearing,” in contrast, is the heart of the judicial process. This is when evidence is presented, witnesses testify, and lawyers make their arguments. The judge begins to assess the facts and shape a ruling. “This is the stage where cases are won or lost,” explains a senior lawyer. For litigants, understanding the gravity of a hearing can determine how seriously they prepare and present their case.
Finally, “adjournment” simply refers to the postponement of a case to a later date. Courts adjourn cases for various reasons: absent lawyers, unavailable witnesses, incomplete documentation, or even scheduling conflicts. An adjournment can occur during a mention or a hearing, and it does not signify the end of a case—it is merely a procedural pause.
Legal experts emphasize that knowing the distinction among these stages empowers litigants. When parties grasp what a mention, hearing, or adjournment entails, courtroom anxiety is reduced, and participants can engage with the process more effectively. Understanding the language of the law, they argue, is a first step toward navigating justice confidently.
