TRUTEC INVESTMENTS SERVICE LIMITED v. MONI PULO LIMITED & ORS (2010)

TRUTEC INVESTMENTS SERVICE LIMITED v. MONI PULO LIMITED & ORS

(2010)LCN/3636(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 18th day of March, 2010

CA/L/308M/03

RATIO

APPEAL: JURISDICTIONAL COMPETENCE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

It is trite that the jurisdictional competence of this court to entertain appeals from the lower courts or tribunals, either in the original or appellate jurisdiction thereof, is traceable to both the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Court of Appeal Act CAP Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; and the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, respectively. See sections 241 of the 1999 constitution; section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004; order 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007 (supra), respectively.

Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules (2007), in particular, has provided in most unequivocal term, that:-

“2(1) All appeals shall be by way of rehearing and shall be brought by notice (hereinafter called “the notice of appeal”) to be filed in the registry of the court below which shall set forth the grounds of appeal, stating whether the whole or part only of the decision of the court below is complained of in the latter case specifying such part) and shall state also the exact nature of the relief sought and the names and addresses of all parties directly affected by the appeal, which shall be accompanied by a sufficient number of copies for service on all such parties; and it shall also have endorsed on it on address for service.

(2) Where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly elated.

(3) The notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds upon which the appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal without any argument or narrative and shall be numbered consecutively.” PER I. M. M. SAULAWA, J.C.A.

APPEAL: IMPORTANCE OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL

It is a trite principle that a notice of appeal is the live-wire that animates and sustains an appeal, thus a condition precedent to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction in any given appeal. See AMADI VS. OKOLI (1977) 7 SC 57; BRAWAL SHIPPING (NIG) LTD VS. EXTRACTION & COMMODITY SERVICELTD (2001) 2; OKOTIE VS. OLUGHOR (1995) 5 SC NJ 2171. PER I. M. M. SAULAWA, J.C.A.

APPEAL: NATURE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

Therefore, flowing from the above provisions of the law and the eloquent authoritative decisions, this court has an onerous obligation to decline to determine or adjudicate upon an appeal, which is not properly brought before it. See IKEAGWU VS. NWANPKA (1966) 1 SCNLR 238. PER I. M. M. SAULAWA, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

IBRAHIM M. MUSA SAULAWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

TRUTEC INVESTMENTS SERVICE LIMITED Appellant(s)

AND

1. MONI PULO LIMITED
2. BRASS EXPLORATION UNLIMITED
3. WESTERN ATLAS INC
4. W. I. INC Respondent(s)

I. M. M. SAULAWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): This is an interlocutory application, dated 15th October, 2009 but filed on 16th October, 2009. The application was brought pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court, thereby seeking the following five reliefs:-
1. AN ORDER of this Honourable court granting leave to the Appellant to amend the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal in the manner set out in exhibit TISH 1 attached to this motion.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable court deeming the amended Notice of Appeal which has been filed and served as having being (sic) properly filed and served.
3. AN ORDER granting leave to the Plaintiff/Appellant to withdraw the brief of argument filed on 22nd day of December, 2004.
4. AN ORDER enlarging the time which the Plaintiff/Appellant may file it’s brief of argument.
5. AN ORDER deeming the Appellant’s Brief of arguments already filed as having been properly filed and served.
The application was supported by a 13 paragraphed affidavit dated 15th October, 2009. Attached thereto are copies of the proposed amended notice of appeal, dated 15th October, 2009, and the original notice of appeal, dated 3rd September, 2009, marked as exhibits TISH 1 & 2, respectively. Instructively, copies of the amended notice of appeal and Appellant’s brief of argument have also been separately filed by the Appellant. No counter affidavit has so far been filed by the Respondents.
When the application last came up for hearing, on 20th January, 2010, the Applicant’s learned counsel, Mr. Marthew Burkaa Esq., submitted, inter alia, that the application is valid and can be granted by virtue of the provisions of order 11 Rule 15 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) COLE VS. MARTINS (1968) ALL NLR 161 at 165; and (ii) REGISTERED TRUSTEES VS. MUNDELE (1967) NMLR 263 at 264. It was contended by the learned counsel, that the case of MARTINS VS. COLE (supra) is on all forms with the instant case. It was however, argued that the case of NWEKE VS. OKAFOR (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1043) 521 at 538 is not applicable to the present case because (1) the issue of JAC OKOLI & CO. who signed the notice of appeal (in OKAFOR’s case) was not the case in COLE VS. MARTINS’ case (supra).

Reference was made to the averments contained in the further and better affidavit, to the effect that G. O. KOLAWOLE & CO. in which Mr. G. O. Kolawole, now a Federal High Court Judge, was practicing as the sole practitioner. The decision of this court in the case of ALHAJI MOHAMMED VS. MARTIN, CA/K/189/M/06, dated 1/09 (unreported) was equally referred to and relied upon. The learned counsel urged on the court to accordingly grant the application.
On the part thereof, the Respondents’ learned counsel, Tope Solola Esq., has vehemently opposed the application on a single point of law. According to the learned counsel, the notice of appeal, dated 3rd September, 2001, which the application seeks to amend, is incompetent.
It was contended that the matter is now well settled, that in the case of OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (2007) ALL FWLR (PT.368) 1016 (supra). wherein the Supreme Court held that processes filed in court must be signed by a legal practitioner clearly identifiable. The court has been urged to follow that decision of the apex court, and thus hold that the present application is incompetent, and accordingly refuse same.
Submitting on point of law, the Applicant’s learned counsel maintains that the case of NWEKE VS. OKAFOR (supra), has not overruled the two (earlier) decisions of the Supreme Court cited and relied upon by him.
It is trite that the jurisdictional competence of this court to entertain appeals from the lower courts or tribunals, either in the original or appellate jurisdiction thereof, is traceable to both the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Court of Appeal Act CAP Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; and the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, respectively. See sections 241 of the 1999 constitution; section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004; order 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007 (supra), respectively.

Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules (2007), in particular, has provided in most unequivocal term, that:-
“2(1) All appeals shall be by way of rehearing and shall be brought by notice (hereinafter called “the notice of appeal”) to be filed in the registry of the court below which shall set forth the grounds of appeal, stating whether the whole or part only of the decision of the court below is complained of in the latter case specifying such part) and shall state also the exact nature of the relief sought and the names and addresses of all parties directly affected by the appeal, which shall be accompanied by a sufficient number of copies for service on all such parties; and it shall also have endorsed on it on address for service.
(2) Where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly elated.
(3) The notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds upon which the appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal without any argument or narrative and shall be numbered consecutively.”
Thus, by virtue of the above provisions of order 6 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007(supra), a party desiring to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of a lower court or tribunal has the responsibility of, first and foremost, filing a notice of appeal.

Most undoubtedly, the issue of a notice of appeal is deeply rooted in the jurisdiction of the court, thus making it fundamental that for an appeal to be properly brought, commenced, or set in motion, a validly competent notice of appeal must be filed. See OLANREWAJU VS. BON LTD (1994) 8 NLR (PT. 364) 622; OLOWOKERE VS. AFRICAN NEWSPAPER (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 295) 583; ERISI VS. IDIKA (1987) 4 NWLR (PT. 66) 503; JOSIAH CORNELIUS LTD VS. EZENWA (1996) 37 LRCN 618; TUKUR VS. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 68) 391 respectively.
Therefore, flowing from the above provisions of the law and the eloquent authoritative decisions, this court has an onerous obligation to decline to determine or adjudicate upon an appeal, which is not properly brought before it. See IKEAGWU VS. NWANPKA (1966) 1 SCNLR 238.
In the instant appeal, the ruling at the lower court dated 5th June, 2001 could be found at pages 539 – 543 of the Record. Whereas, the notice of appeal against the ruling could be found at pages 549 – 547 of the Records, respectively. The notice of appeal is accompanied by 5 original grounds of appeal. I have deemed it expedient to reproduce the 5 grounds of appeal in question, without the particulars thereof for ease of reference as follows:-
“GROUNDS OF APPEAL:”
1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he wrongly exercised his judicial discretion by dismissing the Plaintiffs’ suit because the Plaintiff’s principal witness who was hospitalized in London was unavailable on 5th June, 2001 to be further cross examined as a result of injury he sustained in an accident.
PARTICULARS
i) ……
ii) ……
iii) ……
iv) ……
v) ……
2. The learned trial Judge erred in law by his refusal to hear and determine the Plaintiff’s pending application dated 29th September, 2000 for leave to discontinue the suit against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants by striking out their names as parties before making an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit against the said Defendants.
PARTICULARS
i) ……..
ii) …….
iii) ……
iv) …….
3. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to hear the Plaintiff’s Motion on Notice dated 21st March, 2001 before he summarily adjourned on 3rd April, 2001 the further cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s principal witness to 5th June, 2001.
PARTICULARS
i) ……..
ii) …….
iii) …….
iv) ……
4. The learned trial Judge erred in law by its failure to properly exercise its judicial discretion when he dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit on the ground that the Plaintiff’s principal witness was absent to be further cross-examined when:-
PARTICULARS
i) …..
ii) ……
iii) …..
iv) …..
v) ……

5. The learned trial Judge erred in law by not exercising his discretion judicially when he awarded excessive costs of N40,000.00 in favour of the Defendants against the Plaintiff in consequence of the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s suit when:-
PARTICULARS
i) ……
ii) …..
iii) …..
iv) ….
v) ……
3. RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL:-
(i) ……..
PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE APPEAL:-
1. ……..
…….
2. ……….
….

……Dated this 3rd day of September, 2001.
For: G. O. Kolawole & Co.
Plaintiff/Appellants Legal
Practitioners,
37, Igbosere Road,
Lagos.
Most undisputably, both parties are ad idem that the notice of appeal copiously and painstakingly alluded to above was signed by an unknown person “For: G.O. Kolawole & Co.” the Appellant’s legal practitioners. The name of the actual person that signed the said notice of appeal remains a mystery up to this point in time.
However, by the instant application vis-a-vis the affidavit and the exhibits annexed thereto, this court has desperately been urged upon to, inter alia, make an order:-
“1. Granting leave to the Appellant to amend the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal in the manner set out in exhibit TISL 1 attached to this motion.
2. AN ORDER …deeming the amended Notice of Appeal has been filed and served as having being (sic) properly filed and served.”
The learned counsel to the Appellant has cited and relied on the Supreme Court cases of COLE VS. MARTINS (supra) and REGISTERED TRUSTEES VS. AKINDELE (supra), to the effect that the application is valid and can be granted by this court.
The genesis of the case of the Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church of Lagos Area Vs. Rahman Akindele (supra), is that proceedings were commenced before the Registrar of Titles of an application by the Appellants for registration as owners of some land to which the respondents vehemently objected. The objection, as it were, was upheld prompting an appeal by the appellants to the High Court.
However, the notice of appeal and the grounds of appeal were signed and filed by “J.A. Cole & Company” which was described as legal practitioners representing the appellants. In signing the notice of appeal, counsel used the name in which he registered as a legal practitioner. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, the learned appellate judge of the High Court drew attention of counsel to the fact that Order 3 Rule 2 of the High Court of Appeal (Appeals) Rules had not been complied with because the firm of J.A. Cole & Co. was not a legal practitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act of 1962. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. On an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, it was held, inter alia, thus:-
“(1) Every court has a right to decline to adjudicate in proceeding that have not been instituted in the proper manner, but the Supreme Court deplores any decision which vests on a ground on which the parties have not had the opportunity of being heard.
(2) That since in signing the notice of appeal Mr. Cole used his own name, that is to say the name in which he is registered as a Legal practitioner that was a sufficient compliance with the rules on any interpretation of them.
(3) That the court does not accept the submission that the addition of the words “for J.A. Cole & Co. would invalidate the signature, if a signature in a business name was not permitted.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court including the order for costs, and remitted the matter to the High Court with a declaration that the appeal to that court was properly before it, and a direction that Sowemimo, J (of blessed memory as he then was) should now give judgment determining the appeal. The apex court further held, per Brett, JSC; that:-
“The Respondents were not responsible for the initial error, but they opposed the application for leave to appeal to this court and sought to uphold the judgment of Sowemimo, J; when the appeal came to be argued. They must pay costs assessed at 37 guineas.”
Incidentally, the second case of COLE VS. MARTINS (supra) was also an appeal against another decision of Sowemimo, J; (of blessed memory, as he then was) delivered on 25th August, 1965. It was an appeal to the High Court, Lagos against the refusal by an Assistant Registrar of Titles to register a property at Ayilara and Ibadan Streets, Surulere under Title No. 2769. After hearing the counsels’ arguments on the merits, Sowemimo, J; (as he then was) dismissed the appeal in a very short, but rather concise judgment, thus:-
“This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Registrar of Titles given on the 11th of November, 1964. The appeal notice and grounds were purported to be signed by a firm of solicitors known as Lardner and Company.
Under the legal practitioners Act of 1962 Lardner and Company is not a legal practitioner and therefore there had been no compliance with Order 3 rule 2 of the High Court of Lagos (Appeal Rules) and under Order 3 rule 12 of the High Court of Lagos (Appeal Rules) the appeal shall stand dismissed. I award N3.3s. costs to the Respondents.”
It must be pointed out, that the learned eminent judge on his own volition raised the point of non-compliance suo motu with the High Court rules, without hearing argument on the point from counsel. Thus, prompting the Supreme to authoritatively hold that:-
“We have frequently stated in the past, and we must reiterate again how, that it is most desirable that if a court considers after hearing argument of counsel that a matter before it can infact be decided on a technical point on which it has not been addressed by counsel, then the judge should have the matter re-opened and give counsel on each side the opportunity to address him on the point which he thinks may decide the matter before he gives judgment in regard to it. It is in our view only after so acting that a court should adjudicate on a technical point taken by the court itself, particularly when the defect, if there is one, could be cured if the court, in its discretion, give leave to amend.”
Per Lewis, JSC at page 163.
The Supreme Court made copious reference to the case of the Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church, Lagos Area Vs. Rahman Akindele (supra) and Rules of professional conduct in the legal profession and came to the conclusion thus:-
“These rules of professional conduct of course, do not in any way send us as to the interpretation we must give to the term “legal practitioner” but apply solely to the conduct of a person who is a legal practitioner.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court including the order for costs, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court, with a declaration that Sowemimo, J, should now give judgment determining the appeal. The Respondents were not responsible for the initial error and they have not opposed this appeal once it was before us, as we had earlier granted them 7 guineas costs in respect of the motion seeking an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal and leave to appeal, but agreed with the contention that the judgment of Sowemimo J. could not be supported. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to casts on this appeal.”
It should be appreciated, at this stage in time, that in both the cases copiously referred to above, His Lordship Sowemimo, J. (as he then was) did not accord the counsel to the respective parties the opportunity to address him on the very technical point of non compliance with the High Court (Appeals) Rules of Lagos before raising the issue suo motu in the judgments thereof. Thus, resulting in the breach of the right of fair hearing which is predicated on the equitable doctrine of audi alteram partem and the provision of section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. And the rule is well settled, that the question of fair hearing is not merely a technical or rhetorical point. It is indeed a fundamental question, the breach of which undoubtedly strikes at the root of the court’s jurisdiction. See BAMAIYI VS. STATE (2001) 8 NWLR (PT.715) 270. CEEKAY TRADERS VS. GEN. MOTORS CO LTD (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 222) 132.

In the course of determining the appeal, the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act Laws of the Federation 2004, readily came to mind. Most especially, by virtue of the provision of section 2(1) of the said Legal practitioners Act, a person is entitled to practice both as a barrister and solicitor if only his name is registered on the roll.
In the same vein, by virtue of section 24 of Legal practitioners Act (supra), a person is entitled to practise as a barrister or as both a barrister and solicitor. Contrariwise, a law firm is not a legal practitioner within the purview and contemplation of the Legal practitioner’s Act (supra). See OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 521 at 531, paras B – H; 532 paras A – E, respectively, where-in the Supreme Court held, inter alia, per Onnoghen, JSC thus:-
“From the above provision, it is clear that the person who is entitled to practice as a legal practitioner must have had his name on the roll. It does not say that his signature must be on the roll but his name
The combined effect of the above provisions is that for a person to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner he must have his name in the roll otherwise he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria.
OKOLO SAN & CO. is not a legal practitioner recognized by the law, it follows that the said J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. cannot legally sign and/or file any process in the courts and as such the motion on notice filed on 19th December, 2005, notice of cross appeal and applicants brief of argument in support of the said motion all signed and issued by the firm known and called J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. are incompetent in law particularly as the said firm of J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. is not a registered legal practitioner.”

I think, there is a need to explain, albeit briefly, the nature and circumstances surrounding the case of OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (supra). On 19th December, 2005, the applicants therein filed a motion on notice in the Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, an order of extension of time within which to apply for leave to cross-appeal; leave to cross appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Enugu Judicial Division), dated 25th January, 2001; and an extension of time to file notice of cross-appeal, respectively.

Ironically, however, the motion was purportedly signed by “J.H.C. OKOLO, SAN & CO. applicants’ counsel 162 B Zik Avenue Uwani, Enugu,” as the applicants’ counsel. The notice of appeal and the brief filed were likewise purportedly signed by the same “J.H.C. OKOLO, SAN & CO.” Not surprisingly, the 1st, 3rd Respondents filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the motion and equally raised the issue of the incompetence of the motion, notice of cross-appeal and the applicants’ brief of argument.
In determining the motion, the Supreme Court copiously alluded to the provisions of the Legal practitioners Act (supra), and thereby came to the following conclusion.
“In conclusion, I agree with the submission of learned senior advocate of Nigeria for the respondents that the processes filed in this application particularly the motion on notice filed on 19th December, 2005, the proposed notice of cross-appeal and applicants’ brief of argument in support of the said motion on notice are incompetent in that they were not issued by a legal practitioner known to law and are consequently struck out, with N1,000.00 costs in favour of the respondents.” Per Onnoghen, JSC.
It is needless to add that the judgment in question was an unanimous decision, with Kalgo, Oguntade, Mukhtar, and Chukwuma-Eneh, JJSC concurring therewith.
It is rather obvious, that the first two Supreme court cases of the Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church, Lagos Area Vs. Akindele (supra), and COLE VS. MARTINS (supra) are exactly similar, and rather on all fours with one another. Contrariwise, neither the recent Supreme Court case of OKAFOR VS. NWEZE (supra) nor the instant case could rightly be said to be similar to, or on all fours with, the above two Supreme court cases of Registered Trustees Vs. Akindele (supra), and COLE VS. MARTINS (supra).

As painstakingly recounted above, the facts and circumstances surrounding the instant case are most undoubtedly on all fours with those in the most recent Supreme court case of OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (supra), contrary to the submission of the learned to the Appellant. I have copiously alluded to the fact that the notice of appeal in the instant appeal was signed by an unknown and unnamed person.
“For: G.O. Kolawole & Co.
Plaintiff/Appellant’s
Legal Practitioners,
37, Igbosere Road,
Lagos.”
At the foot of the reliefs, at page 547 of volume II of the Record. As alluded to above, the combined effect of the provisions of both sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal practitioners Act (supra), is that for a person to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner, he must have had his name duly registered in the roll, otherwise he is not entitled to engage in any form of legal practice, as a barrister, solicitor, et ai, in Nigeria. See OKAFOR VS NWEKE (supra) at 530 paragraphs H; 531 paragraphs B – E, respectively.
That being the case therefore, since “G. O. Kolawole & Co” is undisputably not a legal practitioner, within the contemplation of the provisions of the legal practitioners Act (supra), especially sections 2(1) and 24 thereof, the notice of appeal purportedly endorsed by it is deemed to be incompetent, and liable to be struck out.
It must be reiterated, that “G. O. Kolawole & Co.” not being a legal pracitioner duly recognized by the law, there is no gainsaying the fact that it cannot validly or legally sign and file any process whatsoever in the courts of law.
Thus, the notice of appeal, dated and filed on 3rd September, 2001, purportedly signed by an unknown and unnamed person “For: G. O. Kolawole & Co.” is grossly incompetent in law, and ought to be struck out.
In view of the above salient postulations, I am unable to appreciate, let alone uphold, the Applicant learned counsel’s agitation that the application is valid, and can be granted by virtue of the provisions of Order 11 Rule 15 of Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 and the two Supreme courts cases of COLE VS. MARTINS (supra), and Registered Trustees of Vs. Akindele (supra). I think, it was Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, who aptly observed in the case of OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (supra) at page 536 paragraphs C- D that:-
“One is minded in this regard to chalk it up to the experience which the applicants’ have rightly gained from the challenge stoutly mounted against the three aforesaid processes in this matter. In this vein therefore, applicants’ counsel in all righteousness ought to have withdrawn these processes to come back properly without any quibble.”
Let me reiterate the very obvious fact, at this stage in time, that this is not a situation in which two or more decisions of an appellate court, and in this case the Supreme Court, are in conflict with one another. Far from it! As I have found herein above, the two decisions of the Supreme court in the Registered Trustees Vs. Akindele (supra) and Cole Vs. Martins (supra) are not on all fours with, and therefore, not in conflict with the later decision in Okafor Vs. Nweke (supra), for the very obvious reasons adumbrated above. Most significantly, unlike in the later case of Okafor Vs. Nweke (supra), it was rather indisputable, that the learned appellate judge of the Lagos High Court, the Hon. Justice Sowemimo, J. (as he then was) failed, rather inadvertently in my view, to accord the Appellants in both cases the opportunity of addressing the court on the issue of competence of the notice of appeal, prior to the determination thereof in the two judgments.

Assuming that the two earlier decisions of the Supreme court in question are in conflict with the later decision in OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (supra), the trite and well established doctrine is that, the decision that is later in time takes precedence over the earlier decision, and operates as a bar, thus representing the correct position of the law. See AKINADE VS. NASU (1999) 2 NWLR (PT.592) 570 at 580 – 581 paragraphs E – D; ALAO VS. UNILORIN (2008) 1 NWLR (PT.1069) 421 at 450 pararaphs F – G; ANSA VS. RTPCN (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 405) 1681 at 1699 – 1701 paragraphs A – B; MKPEDEM VS. UDO (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 673) 631, 644 – 645; NWANGWU VS. UKACHUKWU (2000) 6 NWLR (PT.662) 65, respectively.
Hence, in view of the above reasoning, I have no hesitation whatsoever in coming to the inevitable conclusion that the application filed on 16th October, 2009 is unmeritorious, and same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the notice of appeal, contained at page 547 of volume II of the Record of Appeal, purportedly signed “For: G.O. Kolawole & CO.” is hereby struck out for being incompetent.
No order as to costs.

Appearances

Osemene Nneka with him Mathew BurkaaFor Appellant

AND

Tope Solola with A. A. OdunaikeFor Respondent