NCSU v. EKASA & ORS
(2021)LCN/15069(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, March 04, 2021
CA/A/1089/2019(R)
Before Our Lordships:
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Court of Appeal
Uchechukwu Onyemenam Justice of the Court of Appeal
Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
THE NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION APPELANT(S)
And
- COMRADE BENSON EKASA 2. COMRADE MENELE ZIADEM NZIDE 3. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNION 4. KIRI MOHAMMED SHUAIBU RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT IS PERMITTED TO LOOK INTO THE RECORD OF APPEAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE APPEAL
I have taken judicial notice of the relevant information in the record of appeal, because the law permits me to do so. See the cases of Daggash v. Bulama (2004) NWLR (Pt. 893) 144; Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347 and Military Governor of Lagos State & Ors v. Adebayo Adeyiga & Ors. (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291 at 323, per Adekeye, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated as follows: “I have gleaned through the record of appeal bearing in mind that the law permits me to take judicial notice of all relevant information therein which will assist me in doing substantial justice.” PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
WHEN IS AN APPEAL ENTERED IN THE APPELLATE COURT
The law is settled that an appeal is entered in an appellate Court from the date the record of appeal is transmitted to the Court of appeal. See Adedeji v. Military Administrator, Ekiti State (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 401) 869 and Leaders & Company Ltd. v. Kusamotu (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 405) 180. PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
EFFECT OF AN APPEAL THAT HAS BEEN ENTERED IN THE APPELLATE COURT ON THE LOWER COURT’S JURISDICTION ON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL,
When an appeal has been entered in the Court of Appeal, the legal effect is that the lower Court ceases to exercise jurisdiction on the subject matter of the appeal, because the Court of Appeal then has exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, a lower Court should not do anything which will impede, obstruct or silence the complaints in an appeal or prevent the complaints from being judicially deliberated and decided by the appellate Court. See Alhaji Sulaiman Mohammed & Anor. v. Lasisi Sanusi Olawunmi & Ors (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 254 at 278 – 279, per Olatawura, JSC; where the Supreme Court held that: “An appeal against a judgment or ruling is a complaint against the decision, the lower Court should not by any means silence the complaint or force a party to abandon or renounce his right.” Further, by Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 (as amended) the Court of Appeal “shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings”, of the lower Court, “as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as Court of first instance and may re-hear the case in whole or in part or may remit it to the Court below for the purpose of such re-hearing…” Therefore, an appeal is considered as a re-hearing. See Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 170; Union Bank of Nig. Ltd. v. Fajebe Foods & Poultry Farms (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 334) 325; Sabrue Motors Nig. Ltd. v. Rajab Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 243; A-G; Anambra State v. Okeke (2002) 5 SCNJ 318; Standard (Nig.) Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Nigerian Bank for Commerce & Industry (2006) 43 WRN 47 and Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427. PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
WHETHER A DECLARATORY ORDER CAN BE STAYED: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN EXECUTORY JUDGMENT
I agree with the learned Senior Counsel for Monday O. Ubani, Esq., that a declaratory judgment or order cannot be stayed. See Government of Gongola State v. Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 592; Mrs. Florence O. Carrena v. Chief Akinlase & Ors. (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) 262 and Aragbiji of Iragbiji v. Olabode Oyewinle (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 566. A declaratory judgment or order is one which merely proclaims the existence of a legal relationship and it does not contain any order that can be enforced against the defendant or the party adversely affected by the order or judgment. See Government of Gongola State v. Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur (supra) and Chief R. A. Okoya & Ors. v. S. Santilli & Ors. (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172. On the other hand, “executory judgments and orders are those which declare the rights of parties and proceed to order the defendant to act in a particular way, which is enforceable by execution if disobeyed ” – per Karibi – Whyte, JSC inChief R. A. Okoya & Ors. v. S. Santilli (supra) at 224. PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On Monday, the 1st day of March, 2021, this appeal was called for hearing of pending sundry motions on notice. When the case was called, one Monday Onyekachi Ubani, Esq., stood to inform the Court that he was representing the appellant as its “Public Trustee”, he having been so appointed by the Honourable President of the National Industrial Court. Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) leading Oluniyi Adedeji, Esq., and Darlington Onyekwere, Esq., announced legal representation for the appellant – as represented by the said Monday Onyekachi Ubani, Esq.
One Chief Lawrence Uchechukwu Amaechi also stood as representing the appellant, being its National President. L. A. O. Nylander (SAN) with Chika Eze, Esq., announced their legal representation for the appellant, as represented by the said Chief Lawrence Uchechukwu Amaechi.
In view of the conflicting representations for the appellant, we asked the two learned Senior Advocates of Nigeria to address the Court on who should be accorded recognition to represent the appellant in this Court.
1
Chief Gadzama (SAN) argued that since Monday Onyekachi Ubani, Esq., was appointed a Public Trustee of the appellant Union pursuant to Section 19 (c) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and under Order 59 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, he should be accorded recognition. Learned Senior Counsel contended that Monday Onyekachi Ubani, Esq., was appointed a Public Trustee with effect from the 11th day of January, 2021 and he “has 3 (three) months to perform his mandate”. He further submitted that:
“The order of appointment has not been set aside and it is valid and subsisting. See Ezeokafor v. Ezeilo (1999) LPELR – 1209 (SC). Upon the appoint of the Public Trustee, no power resides in any other person to represent the appellant.”
In his response, L. A. O. Nylander (SAN) stated and submitted as follows:
“Ground 2 and the reliefs in our notice of appeal, we are challenging the consequential order of the National Industrial Court in the judgment delivered on 25/10/2019 – see page 1034 of the record of appeal.
After the judgment, we filed a motion on notice for stay of execution in the lower Court, which was
2
dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction since the appeal had already been entered on 26/11/2019.
Briefs have already been filed and exchanged before his letter of appointment on 29/12/2020.
By Order 59 of the Rules of the National Industrial Court, appointment of a Public Trustee can only be done via a motion on notice and not by a mere letter, as in this case.
The purported appointment of the Public Trustee will rob the current executive committee of the union, who filed this appeal, of their constitutional right of appeal and render nugatory our appeal.
We urge the Court to hold that the Trustee cannot come in now.”
By way of reply on points of law, Gadzama (SAN) argued that:
“Under Order 59 Rule (1) of the Rules of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, the Court can suo motu appoint a Public Trustee or by a motion on notice. See pages 23 and 24 of the judgment of the trial Court, the paragraph 46 per Kado, J.
There is no stay of execution of the judgment, which is even declaratory.”
Section 19 (c) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 provides thus:
“The Court may in all other cases
3
and where necessary make any appropriate order, including –
(a) The grant of urgent interim reliefs;
(b) A declaratory order;
(c) The appointment of a public trustee for the management of the affairs and finances of a trade union or employers’ organisation involved in any organisational dispute;
(d) An award of compensation or damages in any circumstance contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear; and
(e) An order of compliance with any provision of any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear.”
Order 59 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017:
“(1) Where there is an intra-union or intra-organizational dispute before the Court, the Court may suo motu or upon a motion on notice by any of the parties make an order for the appointment of a Public Trustee to manage the administration, affairs and finances of the trade union, employees’ or employers’ organization involved in any intra-union or intra-organizational disputes.
Provided that
4
such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the reasons for the appointment of the Public Trustee and the CTC of the process(es) filed in respect of the intra-union or intra-organisational dispute before the Court.
Provided further that the respondent(s) is given the opportunity to file a counter affidavit in response to the application and in compliance with the rules of the Court.
2. – (1) The Court may appoint a Public Trustee from amongst reputable and notable Nigerians who satisfy the provisions of Rule 3 of this Order.
(2) Where the Court orders that a Public Trustee be appointed in line with the provisions of Sub-rule 1 of this Rule, the Judge shall remit the file of the proceedings to the President of the Court for the appointment of the Public Trustee to manage the affairs, administration and finances of the trade union, employees’ association or employers’ organization. Provided that the appointed Public Trustee shall not interfere with or play any role in the statutory union, association or organization activities.
3.- (1) A person shall not be eligible to be appointed as a Public Trustee to manage the
5
affairs, administration and finances of a Trade Union or Employees’ or Employers’ Organization unless the person has relevant educational qualification, background, knowledge and cognate experience in management and administration of a trade union, employees’ association or employers’ organization.
(2) A person shall not be appointed as a Public Trustee if the person had been a member, worker, associate, affiliate or client or consultant to any of the trade unions, employees’ or employers’ organizations involved in the trade dispute before the Court.
(3) The President of the Court may determine the remuneration and allowances payable to the Public Trustee appointed to run the affairs of a trade union, employees’ or employers’ organization as ordered by the Court.
(4) The salaries and allowances payable to the Public Trustee shall be deductible from the purse of the trade union, employees’ association or employers’ organization in dispute before the Court.”
By the provisions of Section 19 (c) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, the National Industrial Court has the power “to make certain orders”, including “the appointment of a
6
public trustee for the management of the affairs and finances of a trade union… involved in any organisational dispute”. Order 59 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 provides for the procedure for appointing a Public Trustee, eligibility for appointment as a public trustee, functions and mandate of public trustee, term of an appointed public trustee, e.t.c.
In this case, without going into the merits or otherwise of the motion on notice filed on 16/02/2021 and signed by Agbo Mark Chidi, Esq., for and on behalf of the law firm of J-K GADZAMA LLP, Diebo Raphael Gillis-Harry, Esq., deposed in paragraphs 3(a) to (e) of the affidavit in support of the said motion as follows:
“3. I was informed by Mr. Monday Ubani, Esq., during a telephone conversation at our office at 1805, Damaturu Crescent by Kabo way, off Ahmadu Bello Way, Garki 2, Abuja during the review of this matter on 15th February, 2021 at about 6pm of the following facts which I believe to be true:
(a) That there was a leadership tussle in the Applicant leading to suit No – NICN/ABJ/31/2016, at the National Industrial Court. And subsequently
7
leading to a judgment delivered on the 25th day of October, 2019, in which the Hon. Judge Sanusi Kado ordered the President of the National Industrial Court to appoint a Public Trustee in view of the fact that there is a vacuum in the leadership of the Applicant.
(b) That the faction that had been taking advantage of the vacuum in the leadership of the Appellant/Applicant filed Appeal No-CA/A/1089/19, just to frustrate the Compliance with the judgment of the lower Court as it relates to the appointment of Public Trustee in order to enable them continue to benefit from the vacuum in the leadership of the Appellant.
(c) That he has been appointed as Public Trustee pursuant to the said judgment to do the following:
i. To oversee and superintend the running of the administration and finances of the union.
ii. To convene National Delegate Conference of the National Civil Service and organize election to elect new executive members in line with the Constitution of the union.
iii. To render account of his activities within the above specified period in a report to be forwarded to the Court immediately after the expiration of the tenure.
8
- To forward the report to the Honourable Minister of Labour.
v. In the event that he is not able to conclude his assignment within the three months period stated above, he may apply for re-appointment for another three months. in this event, he shall be requested to provide satisfactory reasons why he may be so re-appointed.
(d) That a copy letter of his appointment as Public Trustee dated 29th day of December, 2020, issued by Hon. Justice B.B Kanyip, Ph.D, FNIALS, and President of National Industrial Court of Nigeria, is attached and marked EXHI.
(e) That he has accepted his appointment as Public Trustee and has since commenced his duties. A copy of his acceptance letter with regard to letter of appointment is attached and marked as EXH2.”
Exhibit “1” tendered by the deponent to the said affidavit is a letter dated 29th December, 2020 by the Honourable President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, wherein his Lordship wrote as follows:
“Monday O. Ubani, Esq.,
Ubani & Co.,
No. 12, Adegbola Street,
Near Ikeja Local Government Council,
Ikeja, Lagos State.
Dear Sir,
9
RE: Suit NO. NIC/ABJ/31/2016 COMRADE BENSON EKASA & OTHER COMRADE KIRI MOHAMMED (NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION & 2 ORS
APPOINTMENT AS PUBLIC TRUSTEE FOR NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION
Pursuant to Section 19 (c) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, Order 59 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and the Order contained in the judgment delivered on 25th October, 2019, by His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado, in the above subject matter suit, I hereby appoint you, Monday O. Ubani, Esq., as the Public Trustee for the Nigeria Civil Service Union (herein after referred to as the “Union”) for an initial period of three (3) months, effective from the date of your acceptance of the appointment on the following terms:
1. To oversee and superintend the running of the administration and finances of the Union.
2. To convene National Delegates Conference of the National Civil Service Union and organise election to elect new executive members in line with the constitution of the union.
3. To render account of your activities within the above specified period and report to be
10
forwarded to the Court immediately after the expiration of the tenure.
4. To forward a copy of the report to the Honourable Minster of labour
5. In the event that you are not able to conclude your assignment within the three months period stated above, you may apply for re-appointment for another three months. In this event, you shall be required to provide satisfactory reasons why you may be so re- appointed.
Please note that you are only eligible for re-appointment for another term of three months and not more.
6. Your remuneration with respect to the appointment shall be the same amount as payable to the General Secretary of the Union.
Please further note that you shall be required to forward an acceptance letter to the Office of the Honourable President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja, to confirm that the above listed terms are acceptable to you.
I congratulate you on this appointment and assure you of my highest regard.
Yours sincerely,
Hon. Justice B.B. Kanyip, Ph.D. FNIALS,
President
National Industrial Court of Nigeria.”
From the clear and unambiguous provisions of
11
Section 19(c) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Order 59 Rules 1 and 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, the President of the National Industrial Court has the power to appoint a public trustee “to manage the administration, affairs and finances of a trade union….involved in any intra-union… dispute”, and the appointment of a public trustee can be made “suo motuor upon a motion on notice by any of the parties”.
I have taken judicial notice of the relevant information in the record of appeal transmitted to this Court by Chika Eze, Esq., on behalf of the appellant on the 26th day of November, 2019 and it is clear that, from the issues/questions for determination and relief in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/31/2016 between: COMRADE BENSON EKASA & ANOR V. COMRADE KIRI MOHAMMED & ORS; instituted in the National Industrial Court, the appellant – THE NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION is a trade union and it is involved or has been involved in “intra-union disputes”; that the intra-union disputes resulted in the said lawsuit and judgment was delivered by the trial National Industrial Court, per Honourable
12
Mr. Justice Sanusi Kado, on the 25th day of October, 2019. The said judgment spans pages 1009 to 1033 of the record of appeal.
I have taken judicial notice of the relevant information in the record of appeal, because the law permits me to do so. See the cases of Daggash v. Bulama (2004) NWLR (Pt. 893) 144; Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347 and Military Governor of Lagos State & Ors v. Adebayo Adeyiga & Ors. (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291 at 323, per Adekeye, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated as follows:
“I have gleaned through the record of appeal bearing in mind that the law permits me to take judicial notice of all relevant information therein which will assist me in doing substantial justice.”
In its judgment, the trial Court concluded by stating as follows:
“48. From the foregoing, as it is, and for the reasons given, the Claimants have succeeded only in part and failed in some part of their claims. For proper appreciation and clarity, the orders of the Court are as follows:
i. An order is hereby granted nullifying the expulsion of the 1st Claimant from the 2nd Defendant.
ii. An order is hereby granted
13
reinstating the 1st Claimant back to the membership of the 2nd Defendant with all the rights and privileges of a member.
iii. Reliefs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are hereby refused and same dismissed for lack of proof.
iv. An order is hereby made for the 3rd Defendant not to recognize and register any amendment of the Constitution of the 2nd Defendant in order to allow any amendment of the 2nd Defendant’s Constitution in order to allow any official of the 2nd Defendant to continue to act for the 2nd Defendant after his or her due retirement from the Civil Service of Nigeria, whether State or Federal.
49. The case file is hereby returned to the honourable President of the Court for appointment of Public Trustee in line with Order 59 of the Rules of this Court.
50. Judgment is entered accordingly, I make no order as to cost.”
(Underlining mine for the sake of emphasis)
It is therefore not true that the lower Court granted a specific order “for appointment of Public Trustee in line with Order 59 of the Rules of this Court”. The trial Court merely ordered that the “case filed be returned” to the President of the Court “for appointment of
14
Public Trustee”. Since this part of the judgment of the trial Court is subjudiced, by virtue of the appellant’s appeal, I will say no more on it, except to make oblique reference to it when and if necessary.
The learned Senior Counsel for Monday Onyekachi Ubani, Esq. argued rightly that his appointment was after the appellant’s appeal had been entered in this Court.
The law is settled that an appeal is entered in an appellate Court from the date the record of appeal is transmitted to the Court of appeal. See Adedeji v. Military Administrator, Ekiti State (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 401) 869 and Leaders & Company Ltd. v. Kusamotu (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 405) 180.
When an appeal has been entered in the Court of Appeal, the legal effect is that the lower Court ceases to exercise jurisdiction on the subject matter of the appeal, because the Court of Appeal then has exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, a lower Court should not do anything which will impede, obstruct or silence the complaints in an appeal or prevent the complaints from being judicially deliberated and decided by the appellate Court. See Alhaji Sulaiman Mohammed & Anor. v. Lasisi Sanusi Olawunmi & Ors
15
(1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 254 at 278 – 279, per Olatawura, JSC; where the Supreme Court held that:
“An appeal against a judgment or ruling is a complaint against the decision, the lower Court should not by any means silence the complaint or force a party to abandon or renounce his right.”
Further, by Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 (as amended) the Court of Appeal “shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings”, of the lower Court, “as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as Court of first instance and may re-hear the case in whole or in part or may remit it to the Court below for the purpose of such re-hearing…” Therefore, an appeal is considered as a re-hearing. See Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 170; Union Bank of Nig. Ltd. v. Fajebe Foods & Poultry Farms (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 334) 325; Sabrue Motors Nig. Ltd. v. Rajab Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 243; A-G; Anambra State v. Okeke (2002) 5 SCNJ 318; Standard (Nig.) Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Nigerian Bank for Commerce & Industry (2006) 43 WRN 47 and Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427.
16
I agree with the learned Senior Counsel for Monday O. Ubani, Esq., that a declaratory judgment or order cannot be stayed. See Government of Gongola State v. Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 592; Mrs. Florence O. Carrena v. Chief Akinlase & Ors. (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) 262 and Aragbiji of Iragbiji v. Olabode Oyewinle (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 566.
A declaratory judgment or order is one which merely proclaims the existence of a legal relationship and it does not contain any order that can be enforced against the defendant or the party adversely affected by the order or judgment. See Government of Gongola State v. Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur (supra) and Chief R. A. Okoya & Ors. v. S. Santilli & Ors. (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172.
On the other hand, “executory judgments and orders are those which declare the rights of parties and proceed to order the defendant to act in a particular way, which is enforceable by execution if disobeyed ” – per Karibi – Whyte, JSC inChief R. A. Okoya & Ors. v. S. Santilli (supra) at 224.
In this case, the purported order for appointment of a public trustee, made by the trial Court, in its
17
judgment of 25th October, 2019 does not merely declare the existence of a legal relationship but a specific command that the case file be returned to the President of the National Industrial Court for him to appoint a public trustee for the appellant. It is a unique and special order which belongs to a class of its own, because the order directs the head of that Court to perform a specific task.
Just like a consequential order for costs, awarded to a victorious party by a Court in its judgment, the consequential order for the case file to be returned to the President of the Court below for the appointment of a public trustee ought not to have been executed while an appeal on the matter is pending before the Court of Appeal. By virtue of the appellant’s pending appeal, the trial National Industrial Court of Nigeria, whether by its President or otherwise, ought to have tarried execution of its own order(s). The purported appointment of a public trustee, during the pendency of this appeal, is an avoidable and unnecessary incursion into the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate and determine the issue, amongst others, already submitted to the Court by the appellant and/or the parties.
18
As stated earlier, the appellant’s appeal was entered on 26/11/2019 and from that date this Court became seised of the appellant’s complaints or grievances. Therefore, on or by the 29th day of December, 2020, when the President of the National Industrial Court purported to have appointed Mr. Monday O. Ubani as a public trustee, the appellant’s intra-union dispute was no longer “before” the National Industrial Court, as provided by Order 59 Rule 1 of the Rules of that Court but had already been transferred to the jurisdictional bosom of the Court of Appeal – this Court!
To say the least, the purported appointment of Monday O. Ubani, Esq., as a public trustee was done without jurisdiction, as under the circumstances it was ultra vires the powers of the President of the National Industrial Court, and therefore null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.
In any case, I agree with the submission of Mr. L. A. O. Nylander (SAN) that the purported appointment of the public trustee will unduly fetter the appellant’s appeal and render same nugatory, especially as the order for the case file to be
19
returned to the President of the National Industrial Court for the appointment of a public trustee is one of the appellant’s grounds of appeal. I also agree that the purported appointment “will rob the current executive committee of the union, who filed this appeal, of their constitutional right of appeal”. This is especially so because the appellant has a pending motion on notice, filed on 01/02/2021, for stay of execution of the consequential order in question and one other order in the judgment appealed against.
It is for all the foregoing reasons that I hold that Monday O. Ubani, Esq., cannot legally, properly or validly be a public trustee for the appellant pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. Accordingly, the said Monday O. Ubani, Esq. “cannot come in” to represent the appellant as he lacks locus standi in this appeal.
Accordingly, all processes filed in this appeal by Monday O. Ubani, Esq., whether by himself or through his learned counsel, including the motion on notice filed on 16/02/2021 for the withdrawal/striking out this appeal, are hereby discountenanced and struck out.
The parties are hereby ordered to bear their respective costs.
20
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.: I had an insight of the lead ruling just delivered by my learned brother, MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JCA.
I agree with the finding and conclusion of my learned brother that Mr. Monday O. Ubani, Esq., cannot validly be a public trustee for the Appellant pending the hearing and resolution of this appeal and I so hold.
I also discountenance all processes filed by Monday O. Ubani, Esq., and consequently, same is hereby struck out.
ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the Ruling just delivered by my learned brother, Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein, JCA, and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein.
In consequence, I abide by the orders made therein and make no order as to costs.
21
Appearances:
Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) with him, Oluniyi Adedeji, Esq. and Darlington Onyekwere, Esq. for appellant, as represented Monday O. Ubani, Esq. (the Public Trustee).
L.A.O. Nylander (SAN) with him, Chika Eze, Esq. for appellant as represented by Chief Lawrence U. Amaechi. For Appellant(s)
Mrs. Chinyere Moneme with him, Mukeng Nathan, Esq. – for 1st respondent.
Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed (SAN) with him, Chukwuemeka Ugo Clement, Esq. and Stephen Apeh, Esq. – for 2nd respondent.
Paul Kasim, Esq. with him, Daniel Akinwale, Esq. – for 4th respondent. For Respondent(s)
