MUJELI & ORS v. BOBBOI & ORS (2022)

MUJELI & ORS v. BOBBOI & ORS

(2022)LCN/17154(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, July 22, 2022

CA/YL/45/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal

Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Lawal Abubakar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. AHMED AMINU MUJELI 2. NUHU MOHAMMED MAUDE 3. MALLAM ISHAQ 4. ALHAJI IBRAHIM 5. HAMMANJODA HAMMA GURIN 6. MUHAMMED SANI 7. USMAN SALIHU 8. ASTAJAM SADIQ IBRAHIM 9. ABUBAKAR ALH. SA’AD 10. BAKARI JAURO 11. IBRAHIM SAIDU APPELANT(S)

And

1. AMINU ABAUBAKAR BOBBOI 2. OTHERS UNKNOWN RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY A PARTY

It is settled law that where a preliminary objection has been raised by a party, it should first be determined before determining the substantive appeal if need be. I am therefore, duty bound to first determine the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Respondent challenging the competence of the appeal. Where successful, it would have the effect of terminating the appeal. I will therefore first examine the preliminary objection. The preliminary objection attacks the entire appeal. See, my earlier decisions in ADAMU & ORS BAJU II and ORS (2021) LPELR–53934 (CA) PP. 8–9, PARA. C; OKOROCHA VS. UBA BANK & ORS (2018) LPELR–45 122 (SC) P. 13, PARAS. E–F, UMANAH VS. NDIC (2016) LPELR–42556 (SC) P. 5, PARAS. A–C, ALL STATES TRUST BANK LTD. VS. KING DAVIDSON ENTERPRISES (NIG) LTD (2000) LPELR–10631 (CA) P. 5, PARAS. B–C and ELAM VS. ADAMAWA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION (2021) LPELR–55980 (CA) PP. 17–18, PARAS. D–B. I would therefore first determine the preliminary objection. PER UWA, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE AN APPEAL CANNOT BE FILED AS OF RIGHT

It is the law that where an appeal cannot be filed as of right (as in this case where the lower Court sat in its appellate jurisdiction), the leave of Court is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of appeal. The failure to obtain the required leave renders any appeal filed incompetent and no jurisdiction is conferred on the appellate Court to entertain the appeal. The effect of failure to obtain the leave of Court to appeal where same is required has been explained by the Apex Court, in BRIGADIER GENERAL DONATUS IDADA IKPONMWEN (RTD) VS. CAPT. JOHN AIREN ASEMOTA & ANOR (2022) LPELR–56594 (SC) P. 22, PARAS. B-D, his lordship, Peter–Odili, JSC held thus:
“It needs to be reiterated that when the seeking and obtaining leave to appeal constitute a condition precedent for the exercise of the right to appeal, failure to seek leave and obtain the mandatory leave renders the appeal incompetent. The purported appeal being a nullity or an illegality is tantamount to there being no appeal. See, OLOWOSOKE VS. OKE (1972) 11 SCI; NALSA & TEAM ASSOCIATES VS. NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 212) 652 at 666.” PER UWA, J.C.A.

THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OR STATE HIGH COURT

The right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Federal High Court or State High Court is provided for by Sections 241, 242 and 243 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 24 Part (v) of the Court of Appeal Act, CAP 36 LFN, 2004. Section 241(1) has clearly given situations where appeals from the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of Right. Whereas Section 242(1) has made provision subject to the Provision of Section 241 of the Constitution above for situations where the leave of the lower Court or their Court would be required before an appeal could be competently filed. The law is that an appeal from the decision of a High Court given in its Appellate jurisdiction requires the leave of Court, either of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. See, PRINCE ADELUYI BUSUYI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2016) LPELR–40864. In such a situation, it is immaterial that the decision is a final one, where the issues involved are of law alone or facts or mixed law and facts. The leave of the Court is required before a competent appeal could be filed. In DANLADI DEME & ORS VS. ALABI RWANG & 1 OR (2010) LPELR–4032 in this Court, his lordship Rhodes–Vivour, JCA (as he then was) held that:
“An appeal from the decision of a High Court delivered in its Appellate jurisdiction requires the leave of the High Court or this Court and non-compliance renders the appeal incompetent.”
See, KAKALE & ANOR VS. NOMA(2018) LPELR–44657 (CA). Therefore, the absence of leave having been sought and granted in the present appeal which arose from the decision of the High Court delivered in its appellate jurisdiction renders the appeal incompetent and robs the Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. See, also UKPONG VS. CFF (2006) 19 NWLR (PT. 1013) 187. The requisite leave is a condition precedent to the exercise of the Right of Appeal under Section 242(1) of the Constitution. Without fulfilling the required condition precedent, of obtaining the leave of Court before the appeal was filed, no right of appeal would be vested on the Appellants. The failure in this case of the Appellants to have obtained the requisite leave as prescribed by Section 242(1) of the Constitution is fatal to the Appellants’ Appeal which is incompetent. See, AREMU & ORS VS. IMMAM (2016) LPELR–41243 (CA) PP. 2–3 PARAS. F–C, AYANBOYE VS. BALOGUN (1990) 5 NWLR 392 at 410, MOSOBA VS. ABUBAKAR (2004) LPELR–5252 (CA) PP. 7–9, PARA. A and IFEAJUNA VS. IFEAJUNA & ANOR (1998) LPELR–6181 (CA) P. 16, PARAS. A–D, his lordship Akpabio, JCA in a similar condition that arose where the required leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction held thus:
“…since the appeal of the appellant was against a decision of the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, and not as a Court of first instance, leave of the said High Court or of this Court should have been obtained (see S. 221 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1979). Since no such leave has been obtained, the appeal is incompetent for failure to comply with a condition precedent. It is accordingly also hereby struck out by me with N2,000.00 costs in favour of respondent.” PER UWA, J.C.A.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the judgment of the Adamawa State High Court presided over by Hafsat Abdulrahman, J. (hereafter referred to as the lower Court) delivered on 14th September, 2020 in its appellate jurisdiction in Appeal No. ADSY/124A/17.

The background facts are that the 1st Respondent filed a suit at the Upper Area Court No. 3, Yola (hereafter referred to as the trial Court) against the Appellants and the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent at the trial sought the following reliefs against the Appellants jointly and severally:
a. “A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that the purported sales of the Plaintiff’s 39 plots of land lying and situate at Anguwan Magaji, Yola South L.G.A., by 1st Defendant (now 1st appellant) to the 2nd, 3rd and other unknown defendants were in breach of the express terms of the 1st Defendant’s engagement with the Plaintiff.
b. A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that the said purported sales of the Plaintiff’s 39 plots of Land without his knowledge and consent was void ab-initio.
c. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court nullifying the sale of the 39 plots of land by the 1st Defendant to 2nd, 3rd, and other unknown Defendants as same were done in breach of the Plaintiff’s instructions, tainted with act of fraudulent misrepresentation and abuse of agency terms.
d. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court perpetually restraining the Defendants’ jointly and severally, either by themselves, their representatives, executors, servants and/or assigns from entering and/or further entering into, tempering with building on, erecting on, constructing on and/or doing any further acts whatsoever on all the 39 plots of land lying and situate at Anguwan Magaji, Yola South L.G.A., Adamawa State.
e. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court granting possession of the said 39 plots of Land and its appurtenance to the Plaintiff.
f. SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDER(S) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

After evidence was adduced from both parties, judgment was given against the 1st Respondent who was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court delivered on 19th June, 2017 appealed against same before the lower Court on the same day. The 1st Respondent in his Notice of Appeal sought the following reliefs:
a. “A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court allowing this appeal.
b. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court setting aside the decision of the Upper Area Court No. 3 per Hon. Abbas A. Hobon (Judge) in Suit No. UAC3Y/CV/FI/59/2014 delivered on the 19th June, 2017.
c. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court granting all the claims of the appellant (the plaintiff) in Suit No. UAC3Y/FI/59/2014 between Aminu Abubakar Bobboi vs. Ahmed Aminu Mujeli & others.
d. SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDER(S) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

On the 14th day of September, 2020, the lower Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and ordered the Appellants to pay the 1st Respondent the remaining balance of Thirty Nine (39) plots of land, allegedly with no value attached to it. It was made out that the 1st Respondent at the trial Court and the lower Court did not claim the balance of the proceeds of sale of the plots of land from the Appellants.

The Appellants distilled the following issues for the determination of the appeal thus:
1. “Whether the lower Court Judge was right to order for the payment of the remaining balance of 39 plots of Land contrary to the claim and evidence of the 1st Respondent – Distilled from Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal.
2. Whether the evidence adduced (both oral and documentary) before the trial Court, the lower Court was right to find and hold that the dismissal of the 1st Respondent’s case at the trial Court was a grave injustice – Distilled from (Ground 3) of the Notice of Appeal).”

In response, the 1st Respondent filed a preliminary objection on 22/2/22 pursuant to Section 241 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court. The following relief was sought:
1. “Uphold this preliminary objection and strike out the Appellants’ appeal for want of competence, as the appeal was filed without the requisite leave of the Court below or the Honourable Court as required by law.”

The grounds upon which the preliminary objection were raised are as follows:
(i) “The judgment of the lower Court sought to be set aside in Appeal No. CA/YL/45/2021, was delivered in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(ii) By virtue of Section 242(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Appellants require prior leave of either the Court below or the Honourable Court to initiate this appeal.
(iii) The Appellants had fail (sic) to seek and obtain leave before filing their Notice of Appeal on 25/9/2020, hence the incompetence.”

In the alternative, should the preliminary objection fail the 1st Respondent formulated the following sole issue for the determination of the appeal thus:
WHETHER THE LEARNED HIGH COURT JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO HAVE ORDERED THE APPELLANTS TO PAY THE VALUE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S 39 PLOTS OF LAND HAVING FOUND THAT THE DISMISSAL OF HIS CASE AT THE TRIAL COURT WAS WRONG?” (Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of appeal).

It is settled law that where a preliminary objection has been raised by a party, it should first be determined before determining the substantive appeal if need be. I am therefore, duty bound to first determine the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Respondent challenging the competence of the appeal. Where successful, it would have the effect of terminating the appeal. I will therefore first examine the preliminary objection. The preliminary objection attacks the entire appeal. See, my earlier decisions in ADAMU & ORS BAJU II and ORS (2021) LPELR–53934 (CA) PP. 8–9, PARA. C; OKOROCHA VS. UBA BANK & ORS (2018) LPELR–45 122 (SC) P. 13, PARAS. E–F, UMANAH VS. NDIC (2016) LPELR–42556 (SC) P. 5, PARAS. A–C, ALL STATES TRUST BANK LTD. VS. KING DAVIDSON ENTERPRISES (NIG) LTD (2000) LPELR–10631 (CA) P. 5, PARAS. B–C and ELAM VS. ADAMAWA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION (2021) LPELR–55980 (CA) PP. 17–18, PARAS. D–B. I would therefore first determine the preliminary objection.

In arguing his preliminary objection, the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent M.J. Ifegwu, Esq. relied on the argument in his brief of argument at pages 7–9 in support of the preliminary objection filed on 22/2/22 deemed properly filed and served on 7/3/22 in urging us to uphold the preliminary objection and strike out the appeal for being incompetent. It was contended that:
(i) The Appellants’ appeal is intrinsically defective and cannot properly arouse the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court hear and/or determine same.
(ii) The Appellants’ purported appeal is one seeking to challenge the decision of the Adamawa State High Court, sitting in its appellate capacity and therefore, not one that the Appellants could initiate as of right.

In arguing the preliminary objection, the particulars of the incompetence of the appeal were given as follows:
(a) The judgment of the lower Court sought to be set aside in Appeal No. CA/YL/45/2021, was delivered in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(b) By virtue of Section 242(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) the Appellants require leave of either the Court below or the Honourable Court to initiate this appeal.
(c) Having failed to seek and obtain leave of either the High Court or the Court of Appeal before filing their Notice of Appeal on 25/9/2020. The Appellants have woefully failed to effectively stimulate the adjudicative powers of this Court to entertain and/or determine this appeal.

It was submitted that the Appellants have no valid appeal before this Court. See, Section 242(1) of the Constitution as (amended), MOMAH VS. MOMAH (2017) LPELR–42817 (CA) in which reliance was placed on MOHAMMED VS. OLAWUNMI (1990) 4 S.C. 40 and EKULO FARMS LTD. VS. UBN PLC. (2006) 4 S.C. (PT. 11) 1. We were urged to uphold the objection and strike out the appeal for want of competence because the decision being challenged before this Court was delivered by the lower Court in its appellate capacity and cannot be rightly challenged on appeal as of right and that the Appellants’ appeal violated the provisions of Section 242(1) of the Constitution (as amended) failed to arouse the jurisdiction of this Court. We were urged to strike out the appeal.

In response to the preliminary objection, the learned counsel to the Appellants A. Y. Mohammed Esq. relied on his reply brief filed on 8/3/22, pages 4–7 in urging us to dismiss the preliminary objection. The Appellants from the grounds of the objection formulated a sole issue for determination thus:
“Whether the Appellants’ appeal as Constituted is incompetent thereby rob the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain it.” (Distilled from Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of preliminary Objection).

It was submitted that the appeal is competent and that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain it. It was argued that where a Notice of Appeal contains only grounds of law, on appeal would be as of right and no leave is required, reference was made to Section 241(1) of the Constitution (as amended). It was argued that in order to determine whether a ground of appeal is a ground of law, the Court has to examine the grounds and the particulars to identify the substance of the complaint, in that way, the issue whether a ground of appeal is of law or mixed law and fact would be resolved. See, NNPC VS. FAMFA OIL LTD. (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 635) PAGE 204 at 221–222, PARAS. G-C and NWADIKE & ORS. VS. IBEKWE & ORS. (1987) LPELR–2087 (SC). It was argued that appeals against any decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal based on grounds of law alone is as of right and no leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal is required. See, NWABUEZE VS. NIPOST (2006) 8 NWLR (PT. 983) P. 480 at 514, PARA. H, OLANIPEKUN VS. OLANIPEKUN (2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 1456) PAGE 488 at 501, PARAS. C-D, DIARA VS. UBA PLC. (2017) 16 NWLR (PT. 1059) P. 99 and OJO VS. INEC (2008) 13 NWLR (PT. 1105) P. 577 at P. 621 PARAS. A-D.

Further, that the fact that an appeal emanated from the decision of the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction did not make it automatic that the Appellant had to seek the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal before filing the appeal. It was argued that, to determine this, the Appellant’s grounds of appeal has to be examined to see whether it is a ground of law alone, facts or mixed law and facts. It was submitted that, where it is established that any one of the grounds of appeal is a ground of law alone, the Appellant can conveniently argue such ground without seeking leave of Court. It was argued that the leave of Court is only paramount where the grounds of Appeal are of mixed law and fact or facts. See, TIMOTHY VS. FABUSUYI (2013) 1 NWLR (PT. 1335) PAGE 379 which was argued to relate to Section 242 (1) of the Constitution (as amended) while the present appeal borders on Section 241(1) of the same Constitution which from the wordings, there is no distinction between final decision, interlocutory decision, decision in Appellate or Original jurisdiction.

It was concluded that the 1st Respondent’s argument that the Appellants required the leave of Court before this appeal could be filed is a misconception of the nature of the Appellants’ grounds of appeal and the provision of Section 241(1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). We were urged to dismiss the 1st Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection for being unmeritorious.

As I said earlier in this judgment, where a preliminary objection is raised and succeeds, that would terminate the entire appeal and there would be no need to look into the substantive appeal, doing so would be an exercise in futility which would not be of any benefit to any of the parties. I would therefore, first determine the 1st Respondents’ Preliminary Objection.

No doubt, the Appellants’ appeal challenged the decision of the lower Court, the High Court of Adamawa State sitting in its Appellate jurisdiction which the 1st Respondent has argued in his preliminary objection that an appeal cannot be rightly initiated as of right and that the leave of Court was required, either of the High Court or this Court. Section 242 (1) of the Constitution (as amended) provides thus:
242(1) “Subject to the provisions of Section 241 of this Constitution, an appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Federal High Court or that High Court or Court of Appeal.”
There is nothing on record to show that the Appellants herein sought and obtained the leave of either the lower Court or this Court before filing their Notice of Appeal. The Appellants have not made out that they sought the required leave before filing their Notice of Appeal. By not doing so, the Appellants failed to effectively activate the adjudicative powers of this Court to entertain or determine this appeal as rightly argued by the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent. It is the law that where an appeal cannot be filed as of right (as in this case where the lower Court sat in its appellate jurisdiction), the leave of Court is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of appeal. The failure to obtain the required leave renders any appeal filed incompetent and no jurisdiction is conferred on the appellate Court to entertain the appeal. The effect of failure to obtain the leave of Court to appeal where same is required has been explained by the Apex Court, in BRIGADIER GENERAL DONATUS IDADA IKPONMWEN (RTD) VS. CAPT. JOHN AIREN ASEMOTA & ANOR (2022) LPELR–56594 (SC) P. 22, PARAS. B-D, his lordship, Peter–Odili, JSC held thus:
“It needs to be reiterated that when the seeking and obtaining leave to appeal constitute a condition precedent for the exercise of the right to appeal, failure to seek leave and obtain the mandatory leave renders the appeal incompetent. The purported appeal being a nullity or an illegality is tantamount to there being no appeal. See, OLOWOSOKE VS. OKE (1972) 11 SCI; NALSA & TEAM ASSOCIATES VS. NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 212) 652 at 666.”
The crux of the 1st Respondent’s objection to the hearing of the appeal is that the judgment of the lower Court sought to be appealed against was given in the lower Court’s appellate jurisdiction which required the leave of the lower Court or this Court to have been obtained before the appeal was filed. The right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Federal High Court or State High Court is provided for by Sections 241, 242 and 243 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 24 Part (v) of the Court of Appeal Act, CAP 36 LFN, 2004. Section 241(1) has clearly given situations where appeals from the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of Right. Whereas Section 242(1) has made provision subject to the Provision of Section 241 of the Constitution above for situations where the leave of the lower Court or their Court would be required before an appeal could be competently filed. The law is that an appeal from the decision of a High Court given in its Appellate jurisdiction requires the leave of Court, either of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. See, PRINCE ADELUYI BUSUYI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2016) LPELR–40864. In such a situation, it is immaterial that the decision is a final one, where the issues involved are of law alone or facts or mixed law and facts. The leave of the Court is required before a competent appeal could be filed. In DANLADI DEME & ORS VS. ALABI RWANG & 1 OR (2010) LPELR–4032 in this Court, his lordship Rhodes–Vivour, JCA (as he then was) held that:
“An appeal from the decision of a High Court delivered in its Appellate jurisdiction requires the leave of the High Court or this Court and non-compliance renders the appeal incompetent.”
See, KAKALE & ANOR VS. NOMA(2018) LPELR–44657 (CA). Therefore, the absence of leave having been sought and granted in the present appeal which arose from the decision of the High Court delivered in its appellate jurisdiction renders the appeal incompetent and robs the Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. See, also UKPONG VS. CFF (2006) 19 NWLR (PT. 1013) 187. The requisite leave is a condition precedent to the exercise of the Right of Appeal under Section 242(1) of the Constitution. Without fulfilling the required condition precedent, of obtaining the leave of Court before the appeal was filed, no right of appeal would be vested on the Appellants. The failure in this case of the Appellants to have obtained the requisite leave as prescribed by Section 242(1) of the Constitution is fatal to the Appellants’ Appeal which is incompetent. See, AREMU & ORS VS. IMMAM (2016) LPELR–41243 (CA) PP. 2–3 PARAS. F–C, AYANBOYE VS. BALOGUN (1990) 5 NWLR 392 at 410, MOSOBA VS. ABUBAKAR (2004) LPELR–5252 (CA) PP. 7–9, PARA. A and IFEAJUNA VS. IFEAJUNA & ANOR (1998) LPELR–6181 (CA) P. 16, PARAS. A–D, his lordship Akpabio, JCA in a similar condition that arose where the required leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction held thus:
“…since the appeal of the appellant was against a decision of the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, and not as a Court of first instance, leave of the said High Court or of this Court should have been obtained (see S. 221 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1979). Since no such leave has been obtained, the appeal is incompetent for failure to comply with a condition precedent. It is accordingly also hereby struck out by me with N2,000.00 costs in favour of respondent.”
I am of the view that the Appellants misunderstood or misinterpreted the crux of the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Respondent alleging that the appeal is incompetent, the appellant not having applied and obtained the leave of the lower Court or this Court before filing the appeal. The Appellants in their response dwelt on the Court determining whether the grounds of appeal are of law alone, and the duty of the Court to examine the grounds and the particulars to identify the substance of the complaint in order to determine whether a ground of appeal is of law or mixed law and fact. Further, that an appeal from the High Court to this Court on grounds of law alone is as of right and that no leave of the High Court or this Court would be required.
The principles of law canvassed by the learned counsel to the Appellants are correct but, not applicable in this appeal and the objection challenging the competence of the appeal, I therefore discountenance the submissions of the learned counsel to the Appellants in that respect. I hold that the decision by the lower Court was in its appellate capacity and cannot be challenged on appeal as of right.
The Appellants failed to fulfill the condition precedent to activate the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeal which is fatal to the Appellant’s appeal in which leave was not first sought and obtained.

In sum, the 1st Respondent’s preliminary objection succeeds and it is hereby sustained. Having upheld the objection, there would be no need to look into the substantive purported incompetent appeal which would be of no benefit to any of the parties but, would be an academic exercise and a waste of precious judicial time. See, NASKO & ANOR VS. BELLO & ORS (2020) LPELR–52530 (SC) PP. 12–13, PARAS. B and AKPAN, OYENEYE VS. ODUGBESAN (1972) 4 (SC) 244, my earlier decision in EL- YADI MOTORS LTD VS. FRN (2019) LPELR–47151 (CA) PP. 28–29, PARAS. A–E and ECOBANK VS. HONEYWELL FLOUR MILL PLC (2018) LPELR–45124 (SC) P. 47, PARAS. A–F, per Okoro, JSC.

The end result is that the appeal is incompetent and it is hereby struck out.

I award costs of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) against the Appellants in favour of the 1st Respondent.

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading the draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JCA. The issues formulated in the lead judgment have been exhaustively dealt with by my lord. I agree with the decision of my learned brother that the appeal is incompetent and should be struck out. I join my learned brother in striking out the appeal. I have nothing further to add.

MOHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.C.A. and I entirely agree with his lordship’s resolution and issues reached therein.
Nothing more to add.