FRAPS & ANOR v. TARABA INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES LTD & ANOR (2020)

FRAPS & ANOR v. TARABA INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES LTD & ANOR

(2020)LCN/14468(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, July 20, 2020

CA/YL/96/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Shehu AbiriyiJ ustice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1) ILIYA JOSHUA FRAPS 2) MASHI YASSABA APPELANT(S)

And

1) TARABA INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES LIMITED (TRIP) 2) IBRAHIM KAWUMA RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT FOR A PLAINTIFF TO SUCCEED IN A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND, HE MUST ESTABLISH HIS TITLE TO THE LAND

The law is settled that once a party pleads and traces his root of title to a particular source in a dispute over land, and his averment is challenged, for that party to succeed he must first establish his title to the land. He must also satisfy the Court as to the source of the title from which he claims to have derived title to the land. In the case of Sunday Abo v. Tyofa Aanyam (2017) LPELR – 42453 (CA) this Court held that:-
“Where a party traces his root of title to a person or a group of persons, and the title of the person or group of persons is challenged as in this instance, he must establish how the person or group of persons derived his or their title to the land. See Ngene v. Igbo (supra) and Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 40. There is no doubt that it is the law that in an action for declaration of title to land, where a plaintiff fails to discharge the burden of proving his root of title to the land, he cannot be entitled to the declaration sought. He cannot fall back on the document of title or acts of long possession either. See Owhonda v Ekpechi (2003) LPELR-2844 (SC) at 14; Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 610 AT 628. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a Writ of Summons dated 5th May, 2016, the Appellants/Plaintiffs before the lower Court claimed against the Respondents/Defendants as follows:-
1) A Declaration of this Honourable Court that the 2nd plaintiff is entitle to defend or protect the title passed to the 1st plaintiff over the piece of land lying and situate at the Northwest of Technobat Housing Estate, Mile Six Jalingo, Taraba State measuring 84.50 meters to the North and bound by an access Road and measuring 97.2 meters from the West to the South and bounded by a swampy land belonging to Yassaba’s family and also measuring 37 meters to the East and bounded by a parcel of land belonging to the Yassaba family.
2) A Declaration of this Honourable Court that the 1st Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title over the piece of land lying and situate at the Northwest of Technobat Housing Estate, Mile Six, Jalingo, Taraba State measuring 84.50 meters to the North and bounded by an access Road and measuring 87.2metres from the West to south and bounded by a swampy land belonging to Yassaba’s

family and also measuring 37 meters to the East and bounded by a parcel of land belonging to the Yassaba family.
3) A Declaration of this Honourable Court that the act of the Defendant in entering in to the 1st Plaintiff’s land without the consent of the 1st plaintiff first sought and obtained, demolishing the fence constructed by the 1st Plaintiff and/or depositing trips of sand on the 1st Plaintiff’s land amounts to an act of trespass.
4) An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, privies, agents, representative or anyone acting by their directive from entering the 1st Plaintiff’s parcel of land lying and situate at the Northwest of Technobat Housing Estate, Mile Six, Jalingo, Taraba State measuring 84.50 meters to the North and bounded by an access Road and measuring 87.2 meters from the West to south and bounded by a swampy land belonging to Yassaba’s family and also measuring 37 meters to the East and bounded by a parcel of land belonging to the Yassaba family.
5) Damages in the sum of One Million Two Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty Five Naira, Twenty

Eight Kobo (N1,226,735.28k) only being the cost for the replacement of the fence demolished by the Defendants.
6) The sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) only against the Defendant as damages for trespass.
7) The cost of filing and prosecuting the suit.
8) And such further order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.

Issues were joined and the matter proceeded to hearing, at the end the trial Court dismissed the claims of the Appellants and the counter claim of the Respondents. Miffed with the decision, the Appellants filed the Notice of Appeal on 26/04/2019. The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 24/05/2019. The Appellants Brief was filed on 6/06/2019; the Respondents Brief was filed on 24/02/2020. In the Appellants Brief a lone issue was donated for determination thus:-
“Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence on record, the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the case of the Appellants is perverse and liable to be set aside.”
(Distilled from grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the grounds of Appeal)

Counsel referred to Page 249 of the

Printed record and submitted that the decision of the trial Court is an abdication of duty as the trial Court has a duty to place the evidence adduced by the parties in an imaginary scale of justice and see where it preponderates. That the law is trite that in civil matters, the standard of proof is to the level of probability and not beyond any reasonable doubt -Standard Trust Bank Ltd. v. Inter Drill Nig. Ltd. & Anor. (2006) LPELR 9848 (CA) and Agala & Ors. v. Okusin & Ors. (2010) LPELR 221 (SC).

That if the trial Judge had weighed the evidence adduced by the parties as required by law in the light of their pleadings, he would have entered judgment in favour of the Appellants. According to Counsel, the trial judge, in dismissing the case of the Appellants went in search of anything that could likely create doubt in the mind of the Court as he relied on minor discrepancies on matters that were never in issue before the court – Page 244 of the Printed record. That the existence of Yamma whom the Plaintiffs claimed to be the founder of the land was never denied by the Defendants in their Statement of Defence. Likewise, the year or period which

Yamma existed and founded the land was never in issue – Paragraph 4 of the Statement of Defence at Page 51 of the Printed record. That the law is settled that facts admitted need no further proof – Ehinlanwo v. Oke & Ors. (2008) LPLER 1054 (SC). Counsel further submitted that since the existence of Yamma was never in issue, the evidence and the discrepancies on it go to no issue. That in proof of traditional history, the law is so clear on what the plaintiff must prove A) Who founded the land in dispute B) How the land was founded and C) The particulars of the intervening owners through whom they claim – Alikor & Ors. v. Ogwo & Ors. (2009) LPELR 8341 (CA). That the trial Judge rightly found as a fact that the Appellants had proved their pleaded root of title and pleaded and proved the purchase of the disputed land through customary sale. That the trial judge clearly and painstakingly evaluated the evidence and came to that impeachable conclusion as can be gleaned from Pages 240 and 241 of the Printed record where the trial Court held that:
“The Plaintiffs have thus satisfied the first requirement of establishing the title of the

1st Plaintiff to the land in dispute through Customary sale of the land to him.”

According to Counsel, the Appellants additionally pleaded and proved the title of their vendor through traditional history. That the trial Judge did not find any fault with the traditional history as stated by the Appellants except that he went to find fault with the evidence of the witnesses; that when the trial Judge evaluated the evidence adduced by the Respondents in support of their counter claim, he found as a fact that they did not place any credible evidence before the lower Court to tilt the pendulum in their favour – Pages 247 – 249 of the Printed record. That from the findings of the trial Court, the evidence adduced by the Appellants’ weigh heavier than the evidence adduced by the Respondents. According to Counsel, the trial Judge ought to have entered judgment for the Appellants. It was the submission of learned Counsel that even if the traditional history given by the parties are conflicting, the trial Court should have tested the history with facts of recent years – Ayorinde & Ors. v. Sogunro & Ors. (Supra) at Pages 20 -21 Paragraphs B – A.

That the Appellants led evidence of the purchase of the land and called PW3 their vendor James Tippi and also a member of Yassaba’s family testified. That the facts pleaded and proved by the Appellants in respect of specific damages as contained in Paragraphs 24-32 of the statement of claim (Pages 16 – 19 of the Printed record) were not denied by the Respondents. That the Respondents in their statement of defence at Paragraph 14 Page 53 of the Printed record merely denied that there was no fence and throughout their evidence, but that no evidence was led on it. That the Respondents did not cross-examine the 1st Appellant on this material issue when he testified as PW 4. Counsel finally submitted that the trial judge was in error when he dismissed the claim of the Appellants in its entirety. He urged the Court to resolve the lone issue in favour of the Appellants, allow the Appeal, set aside the Judgment of the lower Court and grant the reliefs of the Appellants.

The Respondents adopted the sole issue formulated by the Appellants for determination thus:-
“Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence on record,

the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the case of the Appellants is perverse and liable to be set aside?

Learned Counsel submitted that, ground one of the Appellants’ grounds of Appeal shows that the trial judge erred in law when he dismissed the case of the Appellants even after finding out that they have proved their pleaded root of title. Counsel submitted that the finding of the trial Judge at Pages 246-247 of the Printed record reads thus:
“With this type of evidence the Plaintiffs cannot be said to have led a cogent and compelling evidence of traditional history. The traditional evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs is anything but credible. A credible evidence is evidence that is worthy of belief. The evidence adduced by the Plaintiff in support of their traditional history is not such evidence. The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to prove the title of the source from whom they claim to have derived title to the land. Their claim must therefore fail.”

According to Counsel, ground one of the Appellants’ grounds of Appeal does not represent the analysis and findings of the trial Court and that the trial judge

rightly dismissed the reliefs of the Appellants – Jos Electricity Distribution Plc v. Alhaji Garba Muhammed (2015) LPELR-24461(CA).

That based on the above authority, where both the Plaintiff and the Defendant claimed to have purchased the land in dispute from two different sources as in this case, the law is now settled that once a party pleads and traces his root of title in a dispute over land to a particular source and his averment is challenged, for that party to succeed, he must first establish his title to the land. Secondly, he must satisfy the Court as to the source from whom he claims to have derived title to the land – Sunday Abo v. Tyofa Aanyam (2017) LPELR-42453(CA) and Ukwu Eze & Ors. v. Atasie & Ors. (2000) LPELR-1190 (SC). That the Appellants have failed woefully to satisfy the trial Court by credible evidence as to the origin and devolution of their title in respect of the land in dispute. Counsel specifically referred to Paragraphs 5, 7 and 9 of the Statement of Claim and submitted that from the facts given by the Appellants about the origin and devolution of title in respect of the land in dispute, the Appellants have left so

much mysterious linkages which cannot be explained. That PW1 (Obed Ahmed) informed the trial Court at Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of his statement on oath (Page 34 of the Printed record), that the land was founded in 18th Century; that his father Ahmed Mago also settled on a neighboring land to the land in dispute; that the land in dispute was given to Yassaba Aga in the presence of his father, Ahmed Mago. That during cross examination PW1 informed the Court that he was 56 years old; that he knows the founders of the land in dispute, Yaman, Yassaba Aga and Bissah Mago (Page 155 of the printed record).

According to Counsel, there is a mystery here and the mystery is that, the land in dispute was said to have been founded about 300 years ago when the father of PW1 was alive and that PW1 is just 56 years old, then can it be possible that Ahmed Mago gave birth to PW1 when he was more than 200 years? And that more mysterious is the fact that, PW1 told the Court during cross examination that he knows all those people who were said to be alive in 18th Century – Yaman, Bissah Mago, Yassaba Aga and his father, Ahmed Mago.

That all these people lived for more than

200 years? Or may it be that PW1 had mistaken his age: instead of 56 years, may be, the age of PW1 is 256? That this is a mystery that cannot be explained and this Court is urged to so hold. That PW5 during cross examination, informed the Court that he was 36 years old; that Yaman, Yassaba Aga, Mazang and Mago Voto were all alive at particular period of time i.e. in 18th Century; and that it was the same Mago Voto, who was invited by Yassaba Aga to stay with him in 18th Century that Mago Voto sold the land in dispute to James Tippi (PW3) in 2007 (Page 167 of the printed record).

According to Counsel, could it be possible for someone about 300 years to be strong, agile and in his senses to transact a business of buying and selling? More so that it was same Mago Voto who went round the land in dispute, demarcating same for the purpose of selling to PW3 – Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the witness statement on oath of PW5 at page 39 of the printed record. That these mysteries and gaps have rendered the entire evidence unreliable and incredible.

That the Appellants pleaded that the land in dispute forms part of the larger land founded by a Mumuye farmer

called Yaman in 18th Century – (Page 12 of the printed record of appeal). That PW 1, (Obed Ahmed) testified to that effect in Paragraph 4 of his witness statement on Oath (Page 34 of the printed record). That during Cross examination, PW 5 informed Court that:
“The land in dispute does not form part of a larger land founded by a Mumuye man called Yaman in the 18th Century.”

(Page 167 of the printed record). That the above pieces of evidence clearly contradicted the root of title claimed by the Appellants, as such the Appellants failed to prove their title to the land – Alhaji Isiyaku Yakubu v. Alhaji Usman Jauroyel & Ors. (2014) LPELR-22732(SC). He urges the Court to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the trial Court.

This Appeal will be determined on the sole issue formulated by the Appellants which the Respondents adopted as their sole issue for determination too. The issue which I reproduced earlier in this Judgment is:-
“Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence on record, the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the case of the Appellants is perverse and liable to be set aside.”

A careful look at the statement of claim of the Appellants/Plaintiffs at Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 (Pages 12-14 of the Printed record) shows that the Appellants case before the lower Court was that the land in dispute forms part of large expanse of land originally founded by a Mumuye farmer by name Yaman who migrated from Yorro in the 18th Century. That Ahmed Mago came and settled on a neighboring land, while Yassaba Aga who came later approached Yaman for a gift of a portion of the land earlier deforested by Yaman for him to settle and farm thereon; which Yaman agreed and gave a portion of the land to Yassaba Aga as a gift in the presence of Ahmed Mago and Bissah Mago. For clarity purposes Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are reproduced here under:-
5. The Plaintiff aver that the land in dispute formed part of a larger expanse of land originally founded by a Mumuye farmer by name Yaman who migrated from Yorro in the 18th Century. Yaman was a great farmer and in his quest for arable land migrated to the area now known as Mile Six. He deforested a larger expanse of land of which the land in dispute forms part thereof and

settled there with his family.
6. The Plaintiff aver that Yaman settled on the land and farmed yam, maize, corn, millet, beans and other corps annually on the land. Shortly after Yaman settled on the land one other Mumuye man named Ahmed Mago also came and settled on a neighbouring land and the environment began to develop into a community.
7. The Plaintiffs aver that as the community began to develop another Mumuye man named Yassaba Aga approached Yaman for the gift of a portion of the land earlier deforested by Yaman for him to settle and farm thereon, Yaman gave a portion of his land to Yassaba Aga as a gift in the presence of Ahmed Mago and Bissah Mago. The land now in dispute formed part of the land Yaman gave Yassaba Aga.
8. The Plaintiffs aver that Yassaba Aga, Yaman, Bissah, and Ahmed are now dead, but during their life time, as the community began to develop, the area now called Mile Six was named Golong which is a Mumuye word meaning “the coming together of many to settle”. However, during the colonial era the area was named Mile Six.
9. The Plaintiff aver that Yassaba Aga settled on the portion of land given to him by

building a settlement on a part of the land and farming maize, yam, millet, corn and other corps annually on the remaining portion of the land. Yassaba also invited his brothers by name Mazang and Mago voto to join him to the land. Yassaba gave birth to many children amongs whom were:
a. Dakka Yassaba
b. Summang Yassaba
c. Gavo Yassaba
d. Zading Yassaba
e. Mashi Yassaba
f. Anthony Yassaba
g. Shambi Yassba
h. Sabang Yassaba
i. Friday Yassba
j. Ahmed Yassba
k. James Yassba
l. Nyaweng Yassaba
10. The Plaintiffs aver that Mazang the brother of Yassaba gave birth to Jauro Mazang. When Mazang died Yassaba adopted Jauro Mazang and in respect for his uncle Jauro Mazang adopted his uncle’s name and became Jauro Mazang Yassaba. Jauro Mazang was the eldest amongst the children of Yassaba family.
11. The Plaintiffs aver that Yaman also had many children amongst whom were:
a. Kanke Yaman
b. Wapi Yaman
c. Waasu Yaman
d. Mallum Yaman
e. Yisa Yaman
f. Laraba Yaman
12. The Plaintiffs aver that Kanke Yaman was the eldest son of Yaman and during the life time of Kanke

one Fulani man by name Yuguda approached Kanke for a parcel of land for settlement. The land on which the 1st Defendant built their new quarters was given to Yuguda by Kanke. Later Yuguda migrated from the area and returned the land back to Kanke the original owner.
14. The Plaintiffs aver that with respect to the land Yaman gave to Yassaba, after the death of Yassaba the land became a family land and Jauro Mazang Yassaba, Mago voto and Anthony Yassaba held the land in trust for and on behalf of other members of the Yassaba family. Anthony Yassaba, Mago Voto and Jauro Mazang are now dead but in their life time farmed yam, maize, corn beans, groundnut and millet annually on the land.

On the other hand, the Respondents’/Defendants’ case was that the land in dispute came to the possession of the 1st Respondent by means of purchase from one Yunusa Muhammadu a son to the founder of the land in dispute on 19/05/2000 as shown at Paragraphs 1 to 11 and 14 to 15 of the Respondents counter claim (Pages 54-56 of the Printed record). The Paragraphs are reproduced here under:-
1. The Defendants counter-claimed against the plaintiffs as they

restate and rely on each and every paragraph of their Statement of Defence in this Suit in asserting their Counter-claim.
2. The Defendants in proof of their Counter-Claim aver that the land in dispute was originally founded by one Mohammed (the father of Yinusa, vendor to the 1st Defendant).
3. That the said Mohammed came to Howai (Mile Six) along with his brothers, Ardo Yakubu and Mallam Musa.
4. That because each of them was commanding herds of cattle, they sparsely settled far from each other.
5. That the father of Yunusa, Mohammed, settled on the land in dispute by building his Family House on it, creating his Rach and farming Maize, Millet, Corn, etc.
6. That on the land in dispute, Mohammed, the father of the said Yunusa, gave birth to the following children;
i. Yuguda
ii. Buba
iii. Mumini
iv. Yunusa (Vendor to the 1st Defendant)
v. Hauwa
vi. Fadimata
vii. Shatu
viii. Hajara (faalaka)
ix. Audi.
7. That after the death of Mohammadu, the father of the said Yunusa, the title to the whole land devolved on Yunusa and his siblings.
8. That base on historical facts, apart from

the Father of Sylvanus M. Notani, nobody settled around the land in dispute earlier than the Father of Yunusa Mohammed i.e. the vendor to the 1st Defendant
9. That while Mr. Notani settled by the Western part of the land in dispute, the father to said Yunusa Mohammadu settled on the land in dispute up to the Southern part of it where the 1st Defendant presently has its Quarters.
10. That Yassaba Aga settled by the Eastern part of the land in dispute up to where presently Jolly Nyame Quarters (Technobat) is sighted
11. That at the time Yassaba Aga came to Mile six and settled by the Eastern part of the land in dispute, Yunusa Mohammadu, the vendor to the 1st Defendant was a grown up person.
14. The Defendants further aver that on the 19th day of May, 2000 they purchase the land in dispute from the same Yunusa Muhammadu at the rate of Sixty Thousand (N60,000.00) only. The Land Purchase Agreement drafted to that effect shall be relied upon at the trial.
15. That the land in dispute is part of the portion purchased by the 1st Defendant in the Year 2000.

From the Paragraphs of the statement of claim and the counter claim as reproduced

above, it can safely be said that both the Appellants/Plaintiffs and the Respondents/Defendants claimed to have purchased the disputed land from two different sources. The law is settled that once a party pleads and traces his root of title to a particular source in a dispute over land, and his averment is challenged, for that party to succeed he must first establish his title to the land. He must also satisfy the Court as to the source of the title from which he claims to have derived title to the land. In the case of Sunday Abo v. Tyofa Aanyam (2017) LPELR – 42453 (CA) this Court held that:-
“Where a party traces his root of title to a person or a group of persons, and the title of the person or group of persons is challenged as in this instance, he must establish how the person or group of persons derived his or their title to the land. See Ngene v. Igbo (supra) and Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 40. There is no doubt that it is the law that in an action for declaration of title to land, where a plaintiff fails to discharge the burden of proving his root of title to the land, he cannot be entitled to the declaration sought.

He cannot fall back on the document of title or acts of long possession either. See Owhonda v Ekpechi (2003) LPELR-2844 (SC) at 14; Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 610 AT 628. I agree that notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent had acquired a statutory right of occupancy over the land in dispute, his failure to prove the root of title of the original owners of the land, from whom he derived his title, was fatal.”
At Paragraphs 5 of the statement of claim which I reproduced earlier in this Judgment, the Appellants pleaded that the land in dispute forms part of the larger expanse of land founded by Mumuye farmer called Yaman in 18th Century; PW 1 Obed Ahmed gave evidence in support of that averment at Paragraph 4 of his written statement on oath. PW5 on the other hand at Page 167 of the Printed record during cross examination stated that “the land in dispute does not form part of a larger land founded by Mumuye man called Yaman in the 18th Century”. PW5’s evidence has therefore knocked down the case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs completely before the lower Court. The lower Court was therefore right when it held that:- “The

evidence adduced by the Plaintiff in support of their traditional history is not such evidence. The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to prove the title of the source from whom they claim to have derived title to the land. Their claim must therefore fail. Furthermore, the evidence of PW1 is contradictory to that of PW 5 because it affirms the opposite of what PW 5 stated. See the case of Odunlami v. Nigerian Navy (2013) LPELR – 20701 (SC). In the case of Alhaji Isiyaku Yakubu v. Alhaji Usman Jauroyel & Ors. (Supra) the Supreme Court held that:-
“It is also trite that where the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff is contradictory, he would have failed to discharge the onus of proof on him.”

At Paragraph 4.08 of the Appellants Brief it was stated that the existence of Yamma whom the Plaintiffs claimed to be the founder of the land was never denied by the Defendants in their statement of defence as shown at Paragraph 4 of the statement of defence; that what is admitted need no proof. However a careful perusal of the Paragraph 4 (Page 51 of the Printed record) of the statement of defence reveals that it was not an admission by the

Respondents. Paragraph 4 reads:-
4. That the Defendants deny paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the Plaintiff’s Join Statement of Claim and in answer to those paragraphs state as follows:
a. That when Yaman came from Yoro he settled in Pantinapu, (around Jalingo Gate axis) Jalingo and he was neither a farmer nor the Founder of the Land in dispute but a bodyguard (Dogari) to the Chief of Kona, Shumen Shira.
b. That Ahmed Mago did not settle close to Yaman but in Dangangan village of Mile Six which is far away from Pantinapu where Yaman settled.
c. That Yassaba Aga descended from Yorro Hills and settled on the Eastern part of the disputed land. He was alone when he descended leaving behind some of his children: presently the Technobat Quarters (Jolly Nyame Quarters) is sighted where Yassaba Aga settled. His family members were the very people that were compensated when the land was taken over for the construction of the Quarters.
d. That Mazang is a son to Yassaba and Mago Voto is a grandson of Yassaba.

It therefore follows that while the Appellants/Plaintiffs at Paragraph 5 of their statement of claim averred that Yaman settled

at Mile Six and deforested the land when he came from Yorro in the 18th Century and was a great farmer; the Respondents/Defendants are saying above that Yaman settled at Pantinapu around Jalingo gate axis and was neither a farmer nor the founder of the land in dispute.

After a thorough appraisal of the Notice of Appeal and the Briefs of arguments of Counsel, this Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. I affirm the Judgment of the lower Court delivered on 1st February, 2019. N50,000 cost awarded in favour of the Respondents against the Appellants.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I agree.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero JCA, and I agree that this appeal be dismissed.

For the reasons contained in the judgment of my learned brother, I too resolve the lone issue for determination against the Appellants.
The appeal is dismissed.
I abide by all other orders including the order as to costs.

Appearances:

Martin Milkman, Esq. For Appellant(s)

D. Nuhu, Esq., with him, M.B. Audu, Esq. For Respondent(s)