OKOLIE & ANOR v. OKOLIE & ORS (2020)

OKOLIE & ANOR v. OKOLIE & ORS

(2020)LCN/15441(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, November 20, 2020

CA/AS/43/2011

RATIO

PROOF OF CUSTOMARY LAW: RELEVANCE OF THE OPINIONS OF NATIVE CHIEFS

Before Our Lordships:

Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-Sodipe Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. CHUKS ACHI OKOLIE 2. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC APPELANT(S)

And

SAMSON ONYEKWEI OKOLIE 2. OLIVER ONYESI OKOLIE 3. PATRICK EJIME OKOLIE 4. ROSELINE KIDO OKOLIE (FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF LATE CHIEF ANTHONY OKOLIE) RESPONDENT(S)

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Owa- Oyibu coram HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. O OGISI dated 1st July, 2010, wherein the lower Court delivered judgment partly in favour of the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows;
1. A Declaration that the 1st Plaintiff is the first son of Plaintiff CHIEF ANTHONY OKOLIE (deceased) of Owerre – Olubor in Ika North East Local Government, Area of Delta State, who died interstate on 4th of October, 2004.
2. A Declaration that the 1st Plaintiff being the first son of the deceased is entitled under Owerre – Olubor native law and custom or any other custom to hold the properties (Real and Personal) of the deceased in trust for himself and on behalf of children of LATE CHIEF ANTHONY OKOLIE.
3. A Declaration that is the 1st Defendant being the 7th child of LATE CHIEF ANTHONY OKOLIE is not entitled under Owerre – Olubor native law and custom to inherit exclusively all the properties of the deceased to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs and other children of the deceased.
4. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant cannot under Owerre – Olubor native law and custom sell, lease, Mortgage or deal whatsoever with the aforementioned properties of the deceased, including, managing same, without the consent and/or authorization of the Plaintiffs.
5. A Declaration that the delivery of the documents to wit: title deeds of Real property, Purchase agreements, vehicle license of the deceased vehicles, lorries and trailers, Gun Receipts and other documents by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendants who accepted same, without the consent and/or authorization of the Plaintiffs, is contrary to Owerre – Olubor native law and custom.
6. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant, his agents, servants and privies from selling, leasing, mortgaging or doing anything whatsoever with the properties of the deceased LATE CHIEF ANTHONY OKOLIE, including managing same.
7. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant it’s agents, servants and privies from handing over any document of the document of the property of the deceased in their custody to the 1st Defendant or to any third party without the consent and authorization of the Plaintiffs.
8. AN ORDER OF THIS COURT MANDATING the Defendants to render accurate and verifiable accounts of all properties of the deceased held by him.

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The brief summary of the facts leading to the suit is that, the Plaintiff’s/Respondents’ case is that the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent is the 1st son of late Chief Anthony Okolie. Late Chief Anthony Okolie had 2 (two) wives and 12 (twelve) children as at the time of his death. The Plaintiffs/Respondents witnesses testified on the Owerre – Olubor native law and custom to the effect that upon the death of a native of Owerre – Olubor, his properties are catered for by the 1st son on behalf of the other children. The Respondents’ witnesses also gave evidence that the properties of late Chief Anthony Okolie have been completely shared. While the 1st Defendant/Appellant’s case is that the sharing of the properties of their late father, Chief Anthony Okolie, the Appellant is entitled to payment of the sum of N 2, 000, 000 (Two Million Naira) by the Respondent for the completion of the Petrol Filling Station shared to his Gate. That it is pointless for the 1st Plaintiff to be appointed trustee over properties which have been shared, and that the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent was not fathered by the late Chief Anthony Okolie.

The lower Court in its judgment declared the 1st Plaintiff the 1st son of late Chief Anthony Okolie and also the trustee of unshared real and personal property. The lower Court in addition ordered the 1st Defendant/Appellant to render account before he is paid the N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) for the completion of the Petrol Filing Station.

The Appellant aggrieved by the lower Court’s decision, filed a Notice of appeal dated 25th May, 2010 but later an Amended Notice of appeal on 10th October, 2012 but deemed on 22nd October, 2012.

The Appellant’s brief was filed on 10th October, 2012 but deemed on 14th November, 2012, settled by Jim Okodaso Esq., wherein he distilled five issues for determination thus;
1. Whether the action before the trial Court was properly constituted so as to enable the trial Court to be competent to hear and determine it (GROUND 2)
2. Whether from the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced, the properties of late Chief Anthony Okolie have been completely shared and if so whether there exist unshared properties for which;
i. The 1st Plaintiff (Respondent) can be appointed trustee of,
ii. The Appellant can be made to render account,
iii. The Appellant can be restrained from tampering with,
iv. The Appellant must seek the consent and/or authorization of the Respondents to mortgage, lease, sell and/or manage (GROUNDS 3, 4, 6 and 5)
3. Whether the judgment of the trial Court is not perverse and totally against the weight of evidence (GROUND 1)
4. Was the learned trial Judge right in his refusal to annul the Letters of Administration procured by the Respondents?
5. Whether from the pleaded facts and evidence adduced, the Respondents have proved by credible evidence, their assertion of the 1st Plaintiff being the son and/or 1st son of late Chief Anthony Okolie (GROUND 7).

The Respondent failed to file any brief of argument nor responded by way of counsel appearance, Appellant sought and was granted an order for the appeal to be heard on the Appellants’ brief alone on 1st March, 2016 despite service of hearing Notice, the Respondents failed to appear. This Court being satisfied of the above that the Respondents have lost interest in the appeal proceeded with the hearing of the appeal on 6th October, 2020.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
ISSUE ONE
The Appellant contends in his brief that the proceedings before the lower Court are a nullity as a result of improper Constitution of the parties in the Respondents’ action.

He cited Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution that only a person can institute an action for a Court of law to determine, and this person must be a natural or juristic person. A non – jurist person cannot sue or be sued, AGBONMAGBE BANK LTD v GENERAL MANAGER, G. B OLIVANT LTD (1961) ALL NLR 125; NIGERIAN NURSES ASSOCIATION & 2ORS v A.G FEDERATION & 2 ORS (1981) 11 – 12 SC 1.

Appellant further submits that this action was instituted by the Plaintiffs/Respondents who endorsed their names on the writ of summons as suing “for themselves and on behalf of the Estate of late Chief Anthony Okolie”.
That “the Estate of late Chief Anthony Okolie” is a non-juristic person and is incapable of suing or being sued.

Appellant contends that the natural persons who have subscribed their names as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents as suing “for themselves” are of no moment, because they do not have a common interest, grievance, or common beneficial relief as a pre – condition for suing jointly in a representative capacity as required by the provisions of Order 11 Rule 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988 of the defunct Bendel State of Nigeria as applicable in the Delta State. He further cited IDISE v WILLIAM INT’L LTD (1995) 1 SCNJ 120; MARKT & CO LTD v KNIGHT STEAMSHIP CO. LTD (1910) 2 KB 1021; ORAGBAIDE v ONITIJU (1962) 1 ALL NLR 32; ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEE & ORS v WARRI DIVISION PLANNING AUTHORITY (1973) NSCC 595 @ 612; SHARON PAINT & CHEMICAL CO. NIG. LTD v EZENWAKU (2001) FWLR (PT. 43) 290 @ 312; THE ADMINISTRATORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GENERAL SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) v EKE – SPIFF (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 467) 1; ABU v OGLI (1995) 8 NWLR (PT. 413) 353; LION OF AFRICA CO. LTD V ESAN (1999) 8 NWLR (PT. 614) 197 @ 201.
Appellant postulates that since a non – jurist person cannot be represented in an action such as this, the action, is improperly constituted as there was simply no Plaintiff before the Court for the trial Court to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over the action. That defect in competence is fatal and the entire proceedings at the lower Court is a nullity. See MADUKOLU & ORS v NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR 585 @ 589; DUNG v GYANG (1994) 8 NWLR (PT. 362) 315 @ 327.

ISSUES TWO AND THREE
Arguing issues 2 and 3 together, the Appellant contends that the properties listed by the lower Court in her judgment do not exist other than those on record for which the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent can be appointed trustee.

He submits that it is settled law that parties are bound by their pleadings and the Respondents had enumerated properties of late Chief Anthony in paragraphs 26, 27 and 27A of their Amended Statement of claim and that they have been shared under the “Owerre-Olubor native law and custom’’. That the lower Court cannot declare the 1st Plaintiff/1st Respondent to be trustee of an unshared property, that this was not borne out of the overwhelming evidence adduced and this can only be termed to be in the realm of speculation.
OLANIYI v AROYEHUN (1991) 5 NWLR (PT. 194) 652; NWASEH v NWASEH (2000) 3 NWLR (PT. 649) 391 @ 402 were cited in submitting that the learned trial judge should have considered the issue of sharing property to be closed or dealt with and therefore it has become lifeless and unnecessary to determine it.

OGIAMEN v OGIAMEN (1967) NMLR 245; ADEOSUN v BABALOLA (1972) 5 SC 292; NTA v ANIGBO (1972) NSCC @ 363 were further cited to submit that from the pleaded facts no issues were joined which touched on unshared properties whether real or personal, that there were no evidence led to even suggest the existence of other properties left which had not been shared.

Appellant on the issue of trust submits that a trustee is a person holding property in trust for the benefit of another; and there has to exist a property for which a trustee can be appointed. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 6TH EDITION AT PAGE 1514; NALSA & TEAM ASSOCIATES v NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 212) 452; ONYEKWULUNNE v NDULUE (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 512) 250; ADEBANJO v BROWN (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 141) 661; G. S PASCUTTO v ADECENTRO (NIG) LTD (1997) 11 NWLR (PT. 529) 467 were cited in aid.

He further submits that it was not for the Court, where the Plaintiff’s case fails to set up another case in order to find in favour of the Respondents; OJOMO v INCAR (NIG) LTD (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 317) 534 @ 536 – 546 was relied on.

The Appellant contends that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the state of the pleadings, the burden and standard of proof of evidence adduced thereon when it mechanically granted unmerited reliefs to the Respondents. He urged the Court to interfere. See MOGAJI v ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91; WOLUCHEM v GUDI (1981) 5 SC 319 @ 326 were cited in reference.

It is the further contention of the Appellant that since the evidence on record clearly did not show that there were properties in the custody of the Appellant, it was wrong for the trial judge to have held so. See SEISMOGRAPH LTD v OGBENI (1976) 4 SC 85; OVERSEA CONSTRUCTION LTD v CREEK ENT. LTD (1985) 3 NWLR (PT. 13) 407. That; that being the case, the order to restrain the Appellant from tampering with unshared property cannot be made. See JOHN HOLTS NIG LTD v HOLTS; AFRICA WORKERS UNION OF NIGERIA v CAMEROON (1963) 1 ALL NLR 385 @ 389; EKPENYONG v NYONG (1975) 2 SC 71.

Appellant submits that the trial Court’s declaration that delivery of the documents to 2nd Defendant without the consent and/or authorization of the Respondents is contrary to Owerre-Olubor native law and custom is wrong.

Appellant further submits that the order to first seek the consent of the Respondents as second gate is wrong as this cannot be supported by the evidence led on the pleaded facts. That the 1st Respondent is not the 1st son, and the property of the deceased becomes family property until they are shared, any member of the family can take steps to secure or preserve the said property. See LAYINKA v GEGELE (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 283) 518 @ 532; DADI v GARBA (1995) 8 NWLR (PT 411) 12 @ 20 PARA F.

ISSUE FOUR
It is the submission of the Appellant that the parties joined issues on the letters of administration which the Appellant averred was surreptitiously and fraudulently obtained by the Respondents. That the Respondents asserted the fact of the existence and honest procurement of the letters of Administration while the Appellant’s grouse was with the way or manner the letters of Administration was procured. It therefore became incumbent on the Respondents to prove otherwise by leading evidence on their averments, Section 132, 133 and 136 of the Evidence Act, 2011 were cited in aid.

Appellant contends that the Respondents withheld the production of the original copy which they have pleaded, the learned trial judge held that the photocopy tendered as ID3 was of no probative value when it should have been held against their interest for failure to produce or tender the original copy. See JOE IGA & ORS v CHIEF AMAKIRI (1976) SC 1 AT PAGE 12; AJIDE v KELANI (1985) 3 NWLR (PT 12) 248, Section 167 (d) Evidence Act, 2011 was cited in aid.

The Appellant submits that the learned trial judge misunderstood the itemized fraud which was pleaded in paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 of counter- claim, and therefore held that failure to tender in evidence the letter of Administration is fatal to the claim of the Appellant. Appellant contends that the use of “fraudulent’’ in a civil suit does not necessarily raise an allegation of crime. AROWOLO v IFABIYI (2002) 4 NWLR (PT. 757) 356 @ 380 –381, PARAS H – C; GODWIN NWANKWERE v JOSEPH ADEWUMI (1967) NMLR 45.

Appellant further contends that the trial judge should have on the balance of probability concluded and held in favour of the Appellant on his counter-claim as it pertains to his Reliefs 13 (a) & (b), since the fact of the procurement of the letters of Administration has been admitted and established, therefore it needed no further proof. ABUKAKAR v YARADUA (2008) 19 NWLR (PT. 1120) 1 @ 146 PARAS D – F; ACB LTD v GWAGWADA (SUPRA).

That admission by Respondents clearly obviate the duty on the Appellant to tender the letters of Administration, Appellant’s failure to tender a certified copy was irrelevant and should have been of no consequence, and the Respondents failed to discharge the burden of proof by failing to lead evidence in rebuttal as to honestly applying for and obtaining the letters of Administration.

ISSUE FIVE
Appellant submits that the parties joined issues on the issue of the 1st Plaintiff being the son and/or 1st son of the late Chief Anthony Okolie. He further submits that the lower Court misapprehended the issue raised by the joinder and the fact that it is the Respondents who have asserted the birth and offspring of 1st Plaintiff to the deceased, that the lower Court placed the burden of proof on the Appellant albeit wrongly because a negative assertion does not cast the evidential burden on a party to prove; AJIDE v KELANI (1985) 3 NWLR (PT 12) 248; EJINIYI v ADIO (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 305) 320 @ 330; ARE v IPAYE (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 132) 298 @ 318 were relied on.

Appellant contends that the Respondents had the burden to lead credible evidence in proof of the pleaded facts at paragraph 16 of their Amended statement of claim, and failure to do so amount to withholding of unfavourable evidence by the Respondents, Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 was relied on.

Appellant further submits that failure to discharge the burden by the Respondents as required under Section 131 – 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 cannot make the burden shift to the Appellant.

That a claim for declaration is not established by admission but the Respondents must satisfy the Court with credible evidence; OKEDARE v ADEBARA (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 349) 157; REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH v ATTORNEY – GENERAL MID WESTERN STATE (1972) NSCC (VOL. 7) 247; J. K RANDLE v KWARA BREWERIES LTD (1986) 6 SC 15.

It is the submission of the Appellant that although the Respondents adduced copious evidence of circumstances surrounding the marriage of the 1st Plaintiff’s mother to the late Chief Anthony Okolie and the fact of his mother’s pregnancy shortly after marriage, these are however presumptuous and detracts from the fact that the issue of record of birth and certificate resulting from the pleadings being on issue of law should be proved by credible evidence.

It is pertinent to state that the lower Court having not found any injunctive relief or claim directly against the 2nd Appellant (but only against the 1st Appellant) the 2nd Appellant’s name – UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC is bound to be struck out from this appeal and is hereby struck out.

RESOLUTION
As earlier noted, the Respondents in this suit having failed to file a brief of argument or formulate issues, therefore for the determination of this appeal, the Appellant’s brief would only be adopted.

The Appellant has formulated five issues for the determination of this appeal and in resolving them, issue 1 would be resolved on its own, issues 2 & 3 would be resolved together, likewise issues 4 & 5.

ISSUE 1
The contention of the Appellant is that the Respondents instituted the action suing as “for themselves and behalf of the Estate of late Chief Anthony Okolie”, the Estate of late Chief Anthony Okolie is a non juristic person as provided in Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and is incapable of suing or being sued. Section 6(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that:

“The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section –
(b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.”
A juristic person has been defined in NDI OKEREKE ONYUIKE v THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE & ORS (2013) LPELR – 24809 (CA), as;
“Who/What is a juristic person? “A juristic person is a legal entity through which the law of a particular legal system serves to permit groups of natural persons to act as if they were a composite individual for certain purposes. It is a legal fiction which does not mean that this specific entities (sic) are human beings but rather the law allows them to act as people for certain limited purposes, usually lawsuit, property ownership etc”. (culled from an academic thesis).” per DONGBAN – MENSEM, JCA (P. 8, PARAS. D – G).
See also FUT MINNA & ORS v OKOLI (2011) LPELR – 9053 (CA).
Also, in IBRAHIM v JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KADUNA STATE & ANOR (1998) LPELR – 1408 (SC);
“…the definition of the word “person” under Section 3 of the Interpretation Law and Section 18 of the Interpretation Act respectively. This is defined to include any body of persons corporate or unincorporated. It is my view therefore that the words “any person” as provided in Section 2 of the Public Officers (Protection) Law of Northern Nigeria, 1963 are not limited only to natural persons or human beings or to persons sued in their personal names. Unless the contrary intention is indicated, and no such intention is therein manifested, those words in the Public Officers (Protection) Law include persons known to Law, inclusive of artificial persons, public bodies or body of persons corporate or incorporate as well as statutory bodies or persons, public bodies or body of persons corporate or incorporate as well as statutory bodies or persons, whether sued by their official titles or not, so long as they are sued in respect of an act or acts done in pursuance or execution of any law or of any public duty or authority.” per IGUH, JSC (PP. 30 – 31, PARAS F – C)
The term Estate has been defined in MRS SINMISOLA CAREW v MRS. IYABO OMOLARA OGUNTOKUN & ORS (2011) LPELR – 9355 (SC) thus;
“The word ‘estate’ in that clause, in the context of this discussion is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition as: – “The property that one leaves after death; the collective assets and liabilities of a dead person.” per MUKHTAR, JSC (P. 24, PARA B).
The 1st Respondent brought the action as the first son of the deceased a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased Anthony Okolie under the Owerre – Olubor, Ika Native law and customs to hold properties of the deceased in trust and on behalf of the entire children of the late Chief Anthony Okolie and not in any other capacity.
In BALOGUN & ANOR v AGBARA ESTATES (2007) LPELR – 8784 (SC);
“What is more, the Appellant were wrong in their interpretation of Section 10. The law is well settled that where the provision of a statute is clear, it is the duty of the Court to interpret it by giving the plain words their ordinary interpretation without more – see Kraus Thompson Org. V. N.I.P.S.S. (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 901) 44 SC. Section 10 of the Administration of Estate Law clearly states that where a person dies intestate, his estate will be deemed vested in the Chief Judge of a State until administration’s is granted. Obviously, the Respondent is right, any other interpretation would be absurd; there would then be no point in vesting the said estate on the Chief Judge. By the same token, I agree with the Appellants that they never claimed to be Administrators of the deceased’s Estate, rather they averred in their supporting Affidavit that the 1st Appellant was the wife of the deceased; the 2nd Appellant was his brother; and that they have applied for Letters of Administration, which is still under process at the Probate Registry in Lagos”. The Appellants’ position is that so long as a Plaintiff does not falsely indorse the Writ as Administrator and so long as the action is for the benefit of the Estate, an Applicant for Letters of Administration of the estate of a deceased intestate can institute and maintain an action for the protection of the Estate prior to the issue of Letters of Administration. To this end, they cited Jeddo V. Imlko (supra), where the Supreme Court held that where a Plaintiff who sues as next of kin for trespass to the Estate subsequently obtains Letters of Administration, the doctrine of relation back applies, as the action was originally properly constituted in that the Plaintiff sued in the correct capacity at the time of the Issue of the Writ; and it is in order for the Court to allow an Amendment of the Writ enabling the Plaintiff to sue as Administrator. They also cited Okonyia V. Ikengah & Ors (supra), where this Court held- “The Respondents, as Personal Representatives of late George Onyechi lkenoah, have capacity to institute an action in respect of the real estate to which the deceased in this case is entitled by the operation of law, even where letters of administration have not been obtained”. The authorities are very persuasive and appear to favour the Appellants but a closer look shows that the contrary is the case. Each case is determined on its own facts and circumstances, and no two cases are unerringly alike. Notwithstanding the similarities, the Appellants’ situation is not the same. First of all, the Appellants did not sue in the correct capacity at the time of the Issue of the Writ of Summons as the Respondent did In Jeddo’s case. Secondly, the Respondents in Okonyia’s case had been granted Letters of Administration and instituted their action as Administrator and Administratrix. In this case, the Appellants’ application for the letters was being processed. Surely, acting on Administrator and so long as the action is for the benefit of the Estate, an Applicant for Letters of a proposed state of affairs that is yet to be is speculation, which no Court worth its salt should be seen indulging in. But all is not lost; I agree with the Appellants that they should not have been shut out completely as the lower Court did when it dismissed their action for the reasons given. The action should have been struck out, certainly not dismissed. See Chikere V. Okegbe (supra). In my view, the circumstances of this case did not warrant a dismissal of the Appellants’ action in its entirety and I do so hold. In the final analysis, the Appellants did not really have any legs to stand on but their suit should not have been dismissed.” per AUGIE, J.S.C (PP. 19-22, PARAS. D – E).
See UWAZURUIKE v IWE AND ANOR (2014) LPELR – 23774.
The deceased Estate has the right to institute an action in this capacity together with some of the children to protect their interest in the property; to protect the estate from depletion and exposure to outsiders even without the letters of Administration.
This is better fortified as they all agree on record that the Deceased died intestate and was a polygamist, his estate was subject to his native law and custom which in this case it has been confirmed that he was buried under the custom and native law of the Idumu Etiti quarters of Owerre-Olubor, see the evidence of Pw3 at page 84 of the record, custodians and elders in charge of the burial rites and inheritance laws and procedures, see; Pw1 brother of the deceased, page 75, Pw2 on this issue are illustrative and were not shaken.
The testimonies are to the effect that at the death of an Owerre-Olubo man, his first son takes charge of the property of the deceased until it is shared therefore the Respondents have the locus and are proper parties to sue in the event that there is another tampering with the property he is perfectly in order to file an action as done herein, if other interested beneficiaries on the same belief can join in the action.
It is if in the suit the plaintiffs are described as administrators having not tendered the said document that the capacity would be questioned. See ADMIN & SEC OF ESTATE OF ABACHA v EKE SPIFF & ORS (2009) LPELR – 3152.
Therefore, I resolve this issue against the Appellant.

ISSUE TWO & THREE
The Appellant contention is that whether from the pleadings of the parties that the properties of late Chief Anthony Okolie have been shared and whether there exist unshared properties for the 1st Plaintiff to be declared a trustee over, and if the Appellant can be made to render account, be restrained from tampering with, seek consent and authorization of the Respondents to mortgage, lease sell and or manage the properties and whether the judgment is not perverse and against the weight of evidence.

In resolving, the poser, whether or not the properties of the late Chief Anthony Okolie have been shared, the pleadings would be scrutinized. The Respondents/plaintiff in their Amended Statement of Claim at paragraph 27 and 27A listed the properties of late Chief Anthony Okolie; see (pages 68 – 69) of record:
24. The said properties are more particularly described as follows:
a) Petrol Station situate at No. 5, New Lagos/Asaba Road, Umunede.
b) House at Etiti Quarters, Owerre-Olubor
c) Uncompleted Petrol Station, along Umunede/Ogwashi – Uku Road, Owerre-Olubor.
d) Uncompleted storey building at Obi Quarters’Umunede
e) Plot of Land at Ileje quarters, Umunede
g) Plot of land at New Lagos/Asaba Road Umunede

h) 2 Palm Plantations at Owerre-Olubor
i) Double barrel Gun
j) Daf Trailer Truck 95. Reg. No. XB 348 AGB.
k) Mercedez Benz 200 Saloon Car. Reg. No. AE 808 AYB
l) Mercedez Benz 1924 Trailer Lorry Reg. No. XA 800 AGB
m) Mercedez Benz V. Boot, Reg. No. XE 808 AYB
n) Mercedez Benz 011 Lorry – Reg. No. AE 405 AYB.
The Plaintiffs shall contend that where the deceased properties are situate at including Umunede, the custom is that the first son holds the said properties in trust, manages same, before they are shared.

The 1st Defendant in its Statement of defence (page 53) in reaction stated in paragraphs 22 – 23 traversed thus;
22. The 1st Defendant admits paragraph 23 of the properties of the deceased does not includes:
(a) Uncompleted Storey Building at Obi Quarters Umunede.
(b) Mercedes Benz 200 Saloon Car Reg No: AE 808 AYB
(c) Mercedes Benz V. Boot, Reg No. XE 808 AYB.
23. The 1st Defendant denies paragraph 25, 26 and 27 of the statement of claim and avers that he will put the Plaintiffs to the strictest proof at the trial of this suit.

In paragraphs 30 of amended claim and paragraphs 26 and 29 both parties admitted that the items of Trailer/Truck (DAF) Reg No XB 348 AGB, BENZE, MITIBUSHI BUS VBOOT cars were disposed off between Patrick, Dickson and all children of the late Anthony Okolie.

Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the counter claim of the 1st Defendant at page 97 of records and paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the reply/counter claim of 1st Respondent at page 101 – 102 of the record which stated that a sharing committee was set up who shared and submitted a report which was rejected by the 1st Defendant and his siblings and that the sum of N2M which was part of instructions by the committee to be given to 1st Defendant to complete the filling station which was shared to their gate.

At the trial, PW1 at page 76, line 10 – line 8 at page 77 of the record, Pw2 at page 83, line 4 – line 14, Pw3 at page 84 at lines 23 to end, also cross examination at page 85 which I will reproduce to cap up this matter all point to a sharing by the accredited quarters who shared Chief Anthony Okolie’s properties in the land.
“…I am Older than Anthony. When Anthony died the Idumu-Etiti quarter that shares the property. In Owerre – Olubor, it is the quarter that shares the property of a deceased man. It is not the family that shares but the quarter. It was last year that the property of Anthony was shared.
It is the committee member from our quarter that shared Anthony’s property. I was not a member of the committee but we members of the quarter appointed the committee. When the committee was appointed, we heard of the case in Court. In Owerre – Ilubor, the property is shared according to the number of wives, that is the according to the gates. The property of Anthony was shared between the 1st Plaintiff and his brothers of the same mother and Agbor and his brothers of the same mother. The property was shared according to gates. The quarter documented the sharing. I did not sign the document the 1st Plaintiff is not around so he did not sign … I saw the document… I know Chief Onyejebosa, he was the chairman of the committee that shared the Anthony’s property… The 1st plaintiff and Agbor were not present when the quarter was sharing the property their brothers were around. The next to Agbor among the male children of Bridget is the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was present when the property was shared. He showed the committee all the properties of their father.
The committee told the 1st Plaintiff and his brothers of the same mother to give the 1st Defendant the sum of N2M to complete and the allocation of fuel for seven months to enable the 1st Defendant start the filling station at Owerre – Olubor. The day the 1st plaintiff brought the N2Million to give to the 1st Defendant in the presence of the committee, the 1st Defendant did not attend the meeting. It was last year 2006. His lawyer did not also attend. The sharing and the handing over of N2Million took place last year, the committee asked the 1st plaintiff to take the money away. Since then the committee has not assembled again. All members of the quarters saw the money and asked him to take it back. All the committee members were present on the same day…. It is now between now and three years ago that the property of Anthony was shared….I am the eldest of Okolie’s family…’’

On the side of the Defence, the DW1 also stated the sharing formulae, he was the secretary of the sharing committee and aware of the terms of settlement filed in the matter, he was not in the meeting where the plaintiff brought a cheque to the 1st Defendant. Dw2; 1st defendant also testified at page 112 and admitted that the properties were shared by Idum -Etiti quarters of Owerri-Olubor; “…The children of my late father are holding on to their share of my father’s property.’’

From the above overwhelming mentioned pleadings and evidence on record before the Court, I am more than persuaded that indeed both parties agree that the properties of Anthony Okolie was actually shared to the knowledge of all the children and the late Anthony Okolie being subject to the same native law and custom his estate was bound to be governed by the same law.

Furthermore, see the said Terms of settlement/Consent judgment dated 23rd December, 2005 which was filed at the lower Court, at pages 42 – 45 of the Record. Where the Six – Man Committee headed by one Chief Onyejebose and secretary; one Simeon Aziken (Dw1) purported to share the properties of Late Chief Anthony Okolie according to the Owerre-Olubor’s native and custom, these terms of settlement was signed by the parties’ counsel.

The Court is bound by the record of the parties and the 1st Defendant after two weeks of signing through his lawyer filed an objection that he was not satisfied with the sharing.

However, the 1st Defendant’s Counsel; A. Ojo, Esq., (who had earlier signed the terms of settlement that was transmitted at the lower Court) wrote a letter to the Senior Registrar of the High Court of Justice, Owa-Oyibu, stating that the 1st Defendant/Appellant has decided to “back out” of the settlement and the case should proceed to hearing and final determination on the ground that Plaintiffs/Respondents were unwilling to honour the terms agreed on and have not taken steps to fulfil their obligations under the terms of settlement.

Can the purported sharing of the properties of the deceased be held to be valid? I do not find in this regard any nullification of the sharing done, nor objection to the committee nor has any meeting held on same or any claim nullifying same indeed, PW4 said each person is holding onto their shared portion.

I have seen the reliefs in the counter claim, I find that the 1st Defendant/Appellant is complaining about the letters of administration and that the sum of N2M has not been paid to him in paragraph 13 (c) at page 99 of the record and I am convinced that he is not complaining about the sharing done by the committee. Therefore, in line with the above, the sharing of the property done by the committee stands.

The learned trial judge erred when she appointed a trustee over the “unshared properties’’ when clearly all the properties had been shared, there cannot be a vague unenforceable order.

Furthermore, the Appellant who rejected the Terms of settlement and sharing of the properties, cannot turn around and want to rightly claim that the properties have been shared and on that ground choose to deal with the properties purportedly shared to his gate as he pleases, without rendering account of the filling station he has been running. Should it be left to infer his acceptance from the testimony of the 4th Plaintiff and Pw1 that the Appellant would cease to run the filling station when his brothers abroad come home, in the face of his express rejection?

The lower Court held on the issue of shared properties thus;
“I have considered the evidence of the 4th Plaintiff, and that of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses on the one hand and the evidence of the 1st Defendant and his lone witness, DW1 on the other hand. It appears to me from the evidence that the parties are in agreement that the property of late Chief Anthony Okolie quarter, Owerre-Olubor, in accordance with the Owerre – Olubor native law and custom. Where the disagreement lies are are(sic) that:
(1) The 1st Defendant rejected the sharing;
(2) The Plaintiffs have not paid to the 1st Defendant the sum of N2Million to complete the petrol filling station at Owerre- Olubor.
From the evidence of the 4th Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ witnesses, late Chief Anthony Okolie’s property has been shared, but that the sharing was rejected by the 1st Defendant. It is in evidence that he rejected the sharing right in the presence of the committee members and other elders present at the sharing meeting. The 1st Defendant and his lone witness on their part also testified that the property of late Anthony Okolie has been shared, and that the two petrol filling stations owned by their father were not shared. The Plaintiffs were asked to raise N2Million to complete the uncompleted petrol filling station at Owerre- Olubor and thereafter the functioning filling station through their witnesses alleged that the said N2 Million was brought to the committee in cheque to be handed over to the 1st Defendant and the 1st Defendant did not attend the meeting to collect the money, the 1st Defendant and his witness are saying that the Plaintiffs were asked to bring the N2Million to the committee for them to complete the uncompleted filling station and the 1st Plaintiff did not bring the money. The DW1 also said under Cross examination that he was told that the 1st Plaintiff brought the N2Million cheque to the natives of the quarter but that he was not in the meeting of the natives on the said day. I am inclined to believe the testimony of the 4th Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s’ witnesses particularly the PW1, PW2 and PW3. The PW2 and PW3 told Court that the money was paid to the 1st Defendant but he refused to collect and this was in 2006. The 1st Defendant appears to have changed his mind on his initial line of action. He then went to support the case of the Plaintiffs. I say so because if the parties are in agreement that the property of their father has been shared then where is the dispute. There is no doubt that the 1st Defendant having insisted on his initial line of action both on the paternity of the 1st Plaintiff and the non acceptance of the sharing at the point of sharing prompted this suit. If the 1st Defendant has not accepted the sharing why then is his pleading and evidence that the property of his father had been shared according to the native law and custom of the Owerre- Olubor.

The evidence of the 4th Plaintiff and PW2 and PW3 and the averment in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Reply and Defence to counter-claim appear to me to be admission of the fact that the property of late chief Anthony Okolie has been shared by the committee set up by the Idumetiti quarter, Owerre-Olubor, and that the 1st Defendant did not accept the sharing. This presupposes that the Plaintiffs accepted the sharing and were prepared to pay the 1st defendant the sum of N2Million. From the averments in the counter – claim and the Reply and defence to counter claim, the parties are in agreement that the property of late Chief Anthony Okolie has been shared according to the Owerre-Olubor native law and custom except in respect of the two petrol filling stations and personal properties.”
See pages 178 and 179 of the Record.

I agree with the above findings of the lower Court to the extent that the properties were shared and no record of unshared property, therefore the Orders 3, 4 & 6 in the judgment is contrary to laid down evidence on record, the Appellant cannot obtain consent from the 1st Respondent to act on his shared portion of the properties, neither can he be retrained from dealing in same.

There is evidence that the 1st Defendant/Appellant was running the Petrol filling station immediately after their father died, therefore, he is accountable for the accounts of this act, after all he did it on behalf of the family and not his person, the lower Court ought to have said specifically the petrol filling station instead of the word “unshared”, it was shared but the 1st Defendant initially refused the said N2M and now makes a case for it, to this extent I agree that this aspect of the orders sought will be varied.

In the same vain, should there be a residue or any which comes up later it will be the exclusive rights of the 1st Respondent to deal with until it is shared, though there is no claim for any residue.

In this respect, I agree with this part of the judgment is perverse against the weight of the evidence. In summary;
1. There is no unshared property for the 1st Respondent to be appointed trustee of.
2. The Appellant is accountable for the running of the petrol station and must be made to render account.
3. There is no basis in law for the Appellant to seek the consent/authority of the Respondent on his shared portion to mortgage, lease, sell and/or manage.
4. The judgment of the lower Court is partly against the weight of the evidence.
I therefore resolve issues 2 and 3 in part in favour of the Appellant.

ISSUES 4 and 5
The Respondents averred in paragraph 8 of its Amended statement of claim thus;
8. The 1st Plaintiff is the first son and child of Late Chief Anthony Okolie. By virtue of his position, he was duly granted letters of Administration to administer the estate of the deceased, including the petrol station. The Plaintiffs shall in the course of trial rely on a copy or certified true copy of letters of Administration dated 16th of June, 2005.
See page 65 of the record.
The Appellant also in his statement of Defence at page 52 of the Record joined issue with the Respondents when he traversed thus;
8. The 1st Plaintiff is never at any time the 1st son or son at all of late Chief Anthony Okolie. In further answer to paragraph 8, the 1st Defendant states that the alleged letter of Administration was fraudulently obtained behind the 1st Defendant and his sister and that an action is already pending at the High Court Owa-Oyibu challenging the said letters of Administration. (Underlining Mine)
The Appellant specifically averred in his counter claim, paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 thus;
6. The 1st Defendant avers that after the death of their father (the deceased), the Plaintiffs went behind him, surreptitiously applied for and fraudulently obtained Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased without the consent of the 1st Defendant.
7. The 1st Defendant states that the said Letters of Administration was fraudulently obtained by the Plaintiffs by misrepresenting and/or withholding facts which if known would have led to the refusal of grant of the Letters of Administration.
8. The 1st Defendant pleads that under Owerre – Olubor native Law and Custom when a polygamous man dies intestate; his properties are shared among the children in accordance with Owerre – Olubor Native Law and Custom.
9. The 1st Defendant further avers that under Owerre – Olubor native Law and Custom, when a polygamous man dies intestate and if the properties are to be shared among the children in line with Owerre – Olubor Native Law and Custom, the children from all sides are stakeholders and therefore entitled to the administration of estate of the deceased. The Customary Law shall be relied upon at the trial of this suit. (Underlining mine)
See page 98 of the Record.

The Respondents in reply to the 1st Defendant above averments traversed thus;
1. The Plaintiffs deny paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the 1st defendant’s counter – claim
2. In further answer to the said paragraphs, the Plaintiffs state that after the death of late Chief Anthony Okolie (deceased) series of meetings of elders and members of the deceased family were held at Pa Samson Kogwuonye residence at Etiti Quarters Owerre – Olubor, the head of the deceased’s family, to discuss amongst other issues, the management of the assets and properties of the deceased.
3. The Plaintiffs further state that despite the fact that adequate Notice of the said meeting were given to the Defendants, they refused and/or neglected to attend same.
4. The Plaintiffs were mandated orally by the elders and members of the deceased family to apply for letters of Administration for the purpose of protecting the assets of the deceased from third party interests or trespasser.
5. The Plaintiffs’ vehemently deny that they surreptitiously applied for, or fraudulently obtained any letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased as alleged or at all.
6. The 1st Plaintiff is the first son of the deceased and pursuant to Owerre – Olubor native law and custom the 1st Plaintiff has the right and responsibility to protect and manage the estate of the decease from intermeddlers and third party interest.

7. The Plaintiffs’ duly applied for the grant of letters of Administration in respect of the estate of late Chief Anthony Okolie.
8. The Plaintiffs further state that the said Application for grant of letters of Administration was widely published in the publication of Sunday Pointer Newspapers Vol. 6, 509 of 29th May, 2005 at P. 37.
The Plaintiffs shall rely on the following documents in the course of trial:
a) Certified true copy of the Application for the grant of letters of Administration.
b) Sunday Pointer Newspapers of 29th May, 2005.
9. Pursuant to the said publication in the Newspapers, the defendants never filed any caveat at the Probate Registry of the High Court of Justice, Delta State of Nigeria.”(Underlining Mine)
See pages 100 and 101 of the Record.

The Appellant’s contention in issue 4 is that the letter of Administration procured by the Respondents was surreptitiously and fraudulently obtained by the Respondents, and should have been annulled by the lower Court.

From the above reproduced averments, the Appellant contention is grounded on the fact that according to Owerre– Olubor native Law and Custom when a polygamous man dies intestate; his properties are shared among the children in accordance with Owerre – Olubor Native Law and Custom. It is their contention that the children from all sides are stakeholders and therefore entitled to partake in the administration of estate of the deceased.

The validity of this custom has been proven to be true by the composition of the committee and the purported sharing of the properties, however this custom does not stand in isolation as it has also been traversed by the Respondents and evidence given in support by Pw1, Pw2, Pw3 & Pw4 that the 1st Plaintiff is the first son of the deceased and pursuant to Owerre – Olubor native law and custom, the 1st Plaintiff has the right and responsibility to protect and manage the estate of the deceased from inter – meddlers and third party interest.

Pw1; one Agustine Okolie, the younger brother of the deceased in his evidence-in-chief stated that:
“…I am conversant with Owerre – Olubor native law and custom. Under Owerre – Olubor custom before the property of a man who dies intestate is shared, the first son takes care of the property.”

Pw2 and Pw3 testimony are similar to the above Pw1’s testimony on the position of the 1st son in Owerre – Olubor native law and custom as Trustee until the properties are shared.

In MR. KENECHUKWU DOZIE & ANOR v DR. (MRS) CATHERINE ONUKWO & ORS (2019) LPELR – 47276 (CA), this honourable Court held on the effect of the grant of letters of administration tainted with fraud on the application of the Administration of Estate law
See also; ONWUNEME & ORS v AMAH (2018) LPELR – 44698 (CA); UGO v OBIEKWE & ANOR (1989) LPELR – 3319 SC; (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.999) 566; AFEGBAI v EDO STATE & ANOR (2001) LPELR – 193 SC.
The Appellant made heavy weather of the letters of Administration purportedly gotten fraudulently and surreptitiously but failed to specifically plead the particulars of the fraud and also prove same, this is fatal to his claim.
The element of fraud takes it out of the realm of civil and puts it squarely in criminal zone which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt failure of which would be led to it being discountenanced.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

Furthermore, the letter of Administration was not tendered in Court by either party rather ID3 – photocopy of the Letter of Administration dated 16th June, 2005 which was merely tendered for identification purposes is before the Court.
This Court in NOYNELU UGOLO v CHIZOBA N. ODIAMA (2019) LPELR – 47168(CA), UMAR JCA held thus;
“Letters of Administration can be defined as a formal document issued by probate Court appointing one as an administrator of an estate. See Blacks Law Dictionary 6th edition page 905.”
The Appellant however contended the validity on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, and this element he failed to prove. I, therefore cannot annul/nullify the Letters of Administration on that or any ground.

Be that as it may, the 1st Defendant has averred in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Defence that there is a suit at the Owa – Oyibu High Court challenging the said letters of Administration hence, the lower Court could not overreach a Court of coordinate jurisdiction to make orders in respect of this letters of Administration. See ZENITH BANK & ORS v OGBODU & ORS (2017) LPELR – 42734; ADEBAYO v OLAJOGUN (2016) LPELR – 41390, and neither can this Court intervene once the Court from which this appeal flows lacks jurisdiction to do anything, therefore I can say no more on this issue.
The lower Court was right in refusing this relief.

On issue 5, whether the Respondents have proved their assertion of the 1st Plaintiff being the son and/or 1st son of late Chief Anthony Okolie.

When placing the evidence of Pw1, Pw2 and Pw3, who were eye – witnesses on the marriage of the deceased and late Roseline Okolie (Mother of the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent), and the subsequent birth of the 1st Plaintiff against the assertions of the Appellant, who was yet unborn to be conversant with the paternity of the 1st Plaintiff on the balance of probability, the scale tilts in favour of the 1st Plaintiff. The Appellant’s witness – DW1 also hinted to the rights and paternity of the 1st Plaintiff when he testified thus;
“By Owerre – Olubor custom, when a man dies, his property is shared among his children. The Idumetiti quarter came together, appointed a six men committee to look into Anthony Okolie’s property and share it among the children. The property of Anthony was shared. The committee after looking into Okolie’s property, the 1st building of the deceased, where Okolie was buried was given to the 1st Plaintiff. This is in accordance with our custom.”
See page 109 of the record.

Furthermore, on the right of the 1st son to hold the properties in trust pending the sharing/devolution of the properties, this right is given in relation to the native laws and custom of Owerre – Olubor.

It is a trite principle of law that opinions of native chiefs or other persons having special knowledge of that native law and custom are necessary.
In SUNNY A. TUOYO & ORS v MR. WYNE WAWE AGBA & ORS (2014) LPELR – 24533 (CA);
“…the doctrine is well settled to the effect, that in determining vexed questions of native law and custom, the opinions of such native law and custom, nay any credible book or manuscript recognized by natives as a legal authority, are very much relevant. See Section 59, Evidence Act; IDUNDUN VS. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 277 @ 24.” per SAULAWA, JCA (P. 47, PARAS. A – C).
See also USIOBAIFO & ANOR v USIOBAIFO & ANOR (2005) LPELR – 3428 (SC); CHIEF KALADAR. 1 NTEOGWUILE v CHIEF ISRAEL U. OTUO (2001) LPELR – 2071 (SC).
In this instant case, Pw3 was a prominent Chief of Owerre – Olubor, he was the Iyase and Okpara, and he testified that when an Owerre – Olubor dies and his properties have not been shared, the first son will take charge of the properties until same is shared and Pw4, a native of Idum–Ile of Umunede also testified in line with the evidence of the Pw3 in respect of a deceased man of Umunede community.
The lower Court accepted their testimonies as the correct position of the native law and custom in charge, I am bound to accept their evidence as the true position of both communities especially as the Appellant merely averred without more, he in fact abandoned his averment having failed to adduce credible evidence, the lower Court ought to have discountenanced same as he who asserts must prove. See Section 131 of the Evidence Act.

Flowing from the above, it is therefore uncontestable that the 1st Plaintiff is the first son of the deceased and was entitled to hold in trust the properties of deceased, before the sharing of the properties of the deceased under the Owerre – Olubor native law and custom in Ika, Delta state.
I resolve issues 4 and 5 in favour of the Respondents.

On the whole, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the lower Court is upheld in part, for clarity purposes, judgment is varied and entered thus;
1. The 1st Plaintiff/1st Respondent is the first son of the deceased Chief Anthony Okolie of Owerre – Olubor, who died on 4th October, 2004.
2. The 1st Plaintiff/1st Respondent being the first son of the deceased, Chief Anthony Okolie was entitled under Owerre – Olubor native custom and Umunede native law and custom to hold property (Real or Personal) of the deceased respectively in trust for all the children of late Chief Anthony Okolie before the sharing of the properties.
3. The 1st Defendant/1st Appellant is not entitled under Owerre – Olubor native law and custom to inherit exclusively all the properties of the deceased to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs and other children of the deceased.
4. The delivery of the documents to wit: Deeds of real properties, purchase agreements, vehicle license of the deceased vehicles, lorries and trailers, gun, receipts and other documents by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant who accepted same, without the consent and/or authorization of the Plaintiffs is contrary to Owerre – Olubor native law and custom.
5. It is also ordered that the 1st Defendant/1st Appellant renders accurate accounts of the Petrol station he has been managing (to the 1st Plaintiff//1st Respondent) since the death of the deceased held by him for the benefit of the other children of the deceased.
6. The 1st Defendant’s/1st Appellant’s counter claim succeeds in part, judgment is therefore entered for the 1st defendant that the Plaintiff pay to the 1st defendant the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) being money to complete the uncompleted petrol filling station at Owerre- Olubor in accordance with the sharing done by the committee set up by the Idumu – Etiti quarters of Owerre Olubor, in accordance with the Owerre – Olubor native law and custom.
7. The Name of the 2nd Appellant – Union Bank of Nigeria Plc is struck out.
Cost of N100,000 is to the Respondents.

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I agree.

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I agree with and order as in the lead judgment that the appeal be dismissed.

I endorse all the consequential orders made in the lead by my learned brother, Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, relating to the variation of the judgment or the lower Court, made upon the clear evidence led at the trial Court.
I concur.

Appearances:

Jim Okodaso, with him, Akin Adedeji For Appellant(s)

No Appearance For Respondent(s)