Mohammed v. Kano N.A. (1968) 1 All NLR 424." Therefore, a denial of a party of his right to be heard is a breach of his constitutional right as enshrined in Section 36(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and a breach of natural justice. See Otapo v. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587 and State v. Onagoruwa (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 221) 33. Where however, a party decided to indulge in delays, as in this case, he cannot be heard complaining of denial of his right to fair hearing. See Mohammed v. Kano Native Authority (1968) 1 All NLR 424 and Okoduwa v. State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 73) 333. An indolent party, also, cannot complain of lack of fair hearing and the Court cannot aid him in such a case. See Vincent Ugo v. Diokpa Ummuna (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 102 at 131, per M. D. Muhammad, JSC." Per ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Pp. 15-17, Paras. B-B) (...read in context) 6. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - SECTION 3 OF THE ILLITERATE PROTECTION LAW OF DELTA STATE, 2006: Interpretation of Section 3 of the Illiterate Protection Law of Delta State as regards which document or letter requires an illiterate jurat "Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection of Delta State, Laws of Delta State, 2006 provides as follows: "Any person who shall write any letter or document at the request, on behalf or in the name of an illiterate person shall also write on such letter or other document, his own name as the writer thereof and his address, and in so doing shall be equivalent to a statement (a) that he was instructed to write any letter or document by the person for whom it purports to have been written and that the letter or document fully and correctly represents his instructions..." The above statutory provision is clear and unambiguous and its ordinary and plain grammatical meaning should be attached to it. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that where the words of a statute are simple and straightforward, the Court should adopt their ordinary grammatical meanings in the interpretation of the statute. See Ahmed v. Kassim (1958) 3 FSC 51; (1958) SCNLR 28; Yerokun v. Adeleke (1960) 5 FSC 126; Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (No. 2) (1981) 2 NCLR 293; Fred Egbe v. M.D. Yusuf (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.245) 1 and Attorney-General, Federation v. Attorney-General, Lagos State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1380) 249 at 319, per Alagoa, JSC. Applying the literal rule of interpretation to Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Law of Delta State, 2006, the document or letter, which requires a jurat, must have been written at the request of the illiterate person and the jurat is to state that the document "fully and correctly represents" the "instructions" of the illiterate person. The word "instructions" has two meanings as follows: 1. "printed information about how to do, make, assemble, use, or separate something"; and 2. "the relevant information about a legal case given by a client to a solicitor or a solicitor to a barrister". See Encarta