DR. JEREMIAH OJONEMI ALABI ABALAKA & ANOR. v. PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4319(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 24th day of February, 2011
CA/A/80/2003
RATIO
GROUNDS OF LAW: THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN DETERMINING WHETHER A GROUND OF APPEAL IS ONE OF FACT, MIXED LAW AND FACTS OR FACTS SIMPLICITER
I will rely on the position of the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of:- – Kashadadi vs. Sakin Noma (2007) 13 NWLR part 1052 at page 510 where it was held as follows:- “In determining whether a ground of appeal is one of fact, mixed law and facts or facts simpliciter, the Court should go further than the ground of appeal as couched by the appeal and move down to the particulars of error numerically tabulated there under. This is because it is the total package of the ground of appeal and the particulars therein that complete the exercise leading to the conclusion whether a ground of appeal is one of exclusive law, or one of mixed law and fact or one of facts simpliciter. It is the experience in quite a number of cases that while this ground of appeal deals with pure and unadulterated law, the particulars that edify the grounds move to the stream of mixed law and fact, and in some cases to facts and facts only.” Also in Calabar Central Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. & 2 Other vs. Bassey Ebong Ekpo (2008) 6 NWLR part 1083 page 362 The Supreme Court laid down the general principles in making the distinction between different types of grounds of appeal. Some of the principles are as follows:- (a) The grounds of appeal needs to be examined to see whether they reveal a misunderstanding of the lower Court of the law, or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted; (b) Where a ground of appeal complains of a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law or a misapplication of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, it is a ground of law; (c) Where a ground of appeal questions the evaluation of facts before the application of the law it is a ground of mixed law and fact; (d) A ground which raises a question of pure fact is a ground of fact; (e) Where the lower Court finds that particular events occurred although there is no admissible evidence before the court that the events did in fact occur, the ground is that of law; (f) Where admissible evidence has been led, the assessment of that evidence is entirely for that Court and if there is a complaint about the assessment of the admissible evidence, the ground is that of fact; (g) Where the lower Court approached the construction of a legal term of art in a statute on the erroneous basis that the statutory wording bears its ordinary meaning, the ground is that of law; (h) Where the lower Court or tribunal applies the law to the facts in a process which requires the skill of a trained lawyer, it is a question of law; (i) Where the lower Court reaches a conclusion which cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts as found, the appeal Court will assume that there has been a misconception of the law and it is a ground of law; (j) Where the conclusion of the lower Court is one of possible resolution but one which the appeal Court would not have reached if siesed of the issue, the conclusion is not an error in law; (k) Where a trial Court fails to apply the facts which it has found correctly to the circumstance of the case before it and there is an appeal to a Court of Appeal which alleges a misdirection in the exercise of the application by the trial Court, the ground of appeal alleging the misdirection is a ground of law, and not of fact; (m) Where the appeal Court interferes in such a case and there is a further appeal to a higher Court of appeal on the application of the facts, the grounds of appeal alleging such misdirection by the lower Court of appeal is a ground of law and not of facts; (n) A ground of appeal which complains that the decision of the trial court is against evidence or weight of evidence or contains unresolved contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, it is purely a ground of fact, which requires leave for an appeal to a Court of Appeal or a further Court of appeal. – Board of Customs and Excise vs. Barau (1982) 10 S.C Page 48; – Ogbechie vs. Onochie (No. 1) (1986) 2 NWLR Part 23 Page 484 referred to.The view of the Apex Court as enunciated above is instructive as it provides a way out in instances where the line between law and mixed law and fact poses difficulty. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A
LEAVE OF THE COURT: EFFECT OF THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANTS TO OBTAIN THE LEAVE OF EITHER THE TRIAL HIGH COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEAL BEFORE FILING AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF MIXED LAW AND FACT
The effect of failure by the Appellants to file an interlocutory appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact without the prior leave of either the trial High Court or the Court of Appeal is that the Notice of appeal would be rendered incompetent. See- the case of:- – Ojemeh vs. Momodu (1983) ISCNLR page 188; – Madam Fatimo Welle vs. Joel Ajide Bagunjoko (2007) 6 NWLR Part 1029 Page 125 at 139-140. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A
WHETHER AN APPEAL AGAINST AN INTERLOCUTORY DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT ON GROUNDS OF MIXED LAW AND FACTS CAN ONLY BE VALIDLY FILED WITH THE LEAVE OF EITHER THE LOWER COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR IT TO BE COMPETENT
From the record of the appeal, it is manifest that the appeal is against an interlocutory decision by the lower Court on grounds which are at best of mixed law and facts. By the provisions of Section 242(1) of the 1999 Constitution, such an appeal can only be validly filed with the leave of either the lower Court or this Court for it to be competent. In other words, leave of the Court must first be obtained as a precondition for such an appeal to be competent in law and be capable of effectively invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court over the appeal. Where such requisite or necessary leave was not obtained or given by the Court, as in the present appeal, a notice of such an appeal filed without it would be clearly incompetent and the court would lack the jurisdiction to act on it or entertain the appeal. See: OGIDI v. EGBA (1999) 10 NWLR (621) 42, KASHADADI v. NOMA (2007) 13 NWLR (1052) 510, UGBOAJA v. AKITOYE-SOWEMIMO (2008) 16 NWLR (1113) 278. PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A
JUSTICES:
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. DR. JEREMIAH OJONEMI ALABI ABALAKA
2. MEDICREST SPECIALIST HOSPITAL LTD. – Appellant(s)
AND
1. PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
3. NATIONAL AGENCY FOR FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL – Respondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A: (Delivering the leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja in Suit No:- FHC/ABJ/CS/236/2000 delivered on the 22nd day of January 2003.
The Appellants as Plaintiffs by an action commenced at the lower Court claimed against the 1st and 2nd Defendants now 1st and 2nd Respondents as follows:-
“(a) A declaration that the ban or suspension of the use of the HIV vaccine uniquely invented by Dr. Jeremiah O. Abalaka, a registered Medical Practitioner, a Surgeon and the Chief Consultant of Medicrest Specialist Hospital Ltd, Gwagwalada, Abuja by the President Federal Republic of Nigeria on 20th of July 2000 is illegal, null and void and of no effect in that the ban or suspense on violates the Patent No. RP13567 dated the 22/7/99 granted to Dr, Jeremiah Ojonemi Alabi Abalaka by the Registrar of Patents and Designs pursuant to the Patent’s Act Cap 344, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 which is an existing law pursuant to Section 315 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
(b) An Injunction restraining the Federal Government of Nigeria, its servants, agents, privies or otherwise however called from implementing or executing the ban or suspension or in any way interfering with the use of the said patent concerning and or pertaining to or connected with or related to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccine uniquely invented by Dr Jeremiah Abalaka.
By a motion on Notice filed on 25/2/2002 the present 3rd Respondent as Applicant applied for leave to be joined as a Defendant in the case.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants i.e. the Plaintiffs at the lower court filed a counter Affidavit to oppose the application for joinder.
See: (Pages 83-89 of the Record of Appeal)
At the hearing of the application at the lower court learned counsel for the Appellants drew the attention of the court to substantial conflict in the affidavit in support of the application and the counter affidavit. He applied to the court that one Dr Inikori be summoned to be cross examined on the depositions he had made. On the 23rd day of July 2002 the Court ruled on the substantive application and joined the 3rd Respondent without resolving the conflict pointed out by counsel for the Appellants.
The counsel for the Appellants then filed a motion to set aside the said Ruling of 23rd July 2002 on the ground that the appellants were denied fair hearing.
On the 22nd day of January, 2003 the lower court in a ruling refused to set aside the earlier ruling.
The Appellants who are dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Court now appealed to this court.
The learned counsel for the Appellants formulated two issues for determination set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether or not it is proper to rule on an application to resolve conflict in an affidavit in support and against a motion before deciding the motion itself.
(2) Whether the refusal of the lower Court to set aside a ruling delivered in error when the appellants had not replied the motion does not amount to a denial of fair hearing.”
The learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents adopted the issues formulated for determination by the Appellants.
The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent in his own case formulated two issues for determination set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether or not the application of the 3rd Respondent to join this case at the trial court could not possibly be determined until oral evidence is called to resolve the conflict in the affidavit evidence which relate only to the substantive issues.
(2) Whether or not the learned trial Judge was in error in refusing to set aside the earlier ruling delivered on the 23rd July 2002.”
At the hearing learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent referred to the Notice of preliminary objection filed on 9/6/2010. He referred to pages 6-9 of the 3rd Respondents brief of argument where the preliminary objection was argued. He urged this Court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal.
The learned counsel for the Appellants on the other hand referred to the Appellants, reply to 3rd Respondent’s brief of argument deemed filed on 19/1/2011. He applied to adopt the said Appellants’ reply to the 3rd Respondent’s brief as his submission in the preliminary objection.
He urged this Court to dismiss the objection.
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent contended that the two grounds of appeal contained in the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal are incompetent.
The grounds of objection according to him are as follows:-
“(1) The ground one of the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal was filed out of time.
(2) The ground two of the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal was an appeal against discretionary order of the lower Court.
(3) Leave of the Honourable court was neither sought nor granted before the two grounds were argued in the Brief of Argument of the Appellants.
(4) The Notice of appeal and the Appellants’ Brief of argument, being incompetent, are liable to he stuck out.”
He submitted that the two rulings in contention in this case are interlocutory rulings. One was delivered on 23rd day of July 2002 and the other on 22nd day of January 2003. He stated that the notice of appeal in this case was filed on the 27th day of January 2003.
He went further in his submission that the application in which the two Rulings were delivered were discretionary applications. And an appeal against exercise of discretion no doubt involves a question of fact or at best question of mixed law and fact. He submitted that leave of Court is imperative for the two grounds of appeal herein to be competent. He referred to Section 24(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act 2004.
He relied on the following cases:-
– Ibrahim Ohia vs. Military Administrator, Kogi State (2000) NWLR Page 680 Page 24 at 45 Paragraph F-J;
Momoh vs. Okewale (1977) 6 S.C. Page 81;
Yare vs. Nunku (1995) 5 NWLR Part 394 Page 129;
– The C.O.C. vs. Adio (1995) 2 NWLR Part 379 page 75;
– Adetona vs. Edet (2004) 16 NLR Part 899 Page 338.
He finally submitted that this appeal is incompetent and should be dismissed.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants in his reply to the preliminary objection formulated two issues for determination set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether the appeal was filed out of time.
(2) Whether the appeal is competent having been filed without leave of Court.”
The learned counsel for the Respondents did not formulate any issue for determination in resolution of this Preliminary objection but since Counsel for the Appellant has formulated two issues for determination on the matter I therefore consider the issues formulated on behalf of the Appellants relevant to determine the Preliminary Objection.
On the first issue, the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the appeal was filed within time. He stated that the ruling of the lower Court was delivered on 22nd January 2003 and the Notice of Appeal was filed on 27th day of January 2003. He referred to pages 180-182 of the Record of Appeal. He relied on Section 24(2) of the Court of Appeal Act.
On the second issue, the learned Counsel for the Appellant conceded that the appeal is interlocutory and it was filed without the leave of the lower Court or that of this court. But that this appeal raised question of law alone.
He referred to section 241(1)(b) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
He submitted that the two grounds of Appeal in the Notice of Appeal clearly involves question of law alone, and therefore that the Appeal is competent.
The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent contended that this appeal was filed out of time, whereas the learned Counsel for the Appellant maintained that it was filed within time.
In order to verify whether this appeal was filed within time or not, it would be necessary to examine carefully the Notice of Appeal. Pages 180-182 of the Record of Appeal showed that the notice of appeal complained about the Ruling of the lower Court delivered on 22nd day of January 2003. The two grounds of Appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal both challenged the said Ruling of the lower Court.
It is necessary to point it out that the decision being challenged by this appeal is an interlocutory decision. Section 24(2) of the Court of Appeal Act requires that an interlocutory appeal be filed 14 days of the decision complained against. As stated earlier the decision complained against was delivered on the 22nd day of January 2003. The Notice of Appeal was filed on the 27th day of January 2003 i.e. within 5 days of the decision.
In the circumstance, it is my view that the said Notice of Appeal was filed within time.
Issue No. 1 is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellants and against the 3rd Respondent.
It was also contended on behalf of the 3rd Respondent that the two grounds of appeal was an appeal against the discretionary order of the lower Court and that leave was neither sought not obtained.
The Appellants conceded that the appeal is interlocutory and that it was filed without the leave of the lower Court or that of this Court. But it was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the appeal under consideration raised questions of law alone and it is therefore competent.
This will now lead me to examine the two grounds of appeal which are set out as follows:-
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that she did not make a mistake when she failed to rule on the application to resolve conflict in the affidavit evidence in the motion before her.
PARTICULARS
1. The learned trial Judge failed to rule one way or the other on an oral application before her to resolve conflicts in affidavit evidence before her.
2. The learned trial Judge did not consider that when a deponent states in an affidavit that only 5 paragraphs in an affidavit of 41 paragraphs are true and that the remaining 36 paragraphs are “manifest falsehood” that the conflict between the two affidavits should be resolved before proceeding to hear the motion.
3. The learned trial Judge did not consider that credible evidence is the foundation of the just resolution of any dispute.
2. The learned trial Judge seriously erred in law when she refused to set aside her ruling deciding the main motion instead of ruling on the oral application to resolve the conflict in affidavit evidence thereby shutting out the Appellants from replying the argument of the party seeking to be joined.
PARTICULARS
1. The learned trial Judge failed to uphold the Fundamental Human Right of the Appellants to be heard before she delivered her ruling on the motion for joinder.
2. The learned trial Judge decided the motion on the argument of one side only when the other side had filed a 41 paragraph counter affidavit which is a miscarriage of justice.
3. The learned trial Judge failed to allow the time honoured saying that nobody is above a mistake and that in the interest of justice and the public that rulings delivered in error ought to be set aside.”
In considering the competence of the two grounds of appeal I will rely on the position of the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of:-
– Kashadadi vs. Sakin Noma (2007) 13 NWLR part 1052 at page 510 where it was held as follows:-
“In determining whether a ground of appeal is one of fact, mixed law and facts or facts simpliciter, the Court should go further than the ground of appeal as couched by the appeal and move down to the particulars of error numerically tabulated there under. This is because it is the total package of the ground of appeal and the particulars therein that complete the exercise leading to the conclusion whether a ground of appeal is one of exclusive law, or one of mixed law and fact or one of facts simpliciter. It is the experience in quite a number of cases that while this ground of appeal deals with pure and unadulterated law, the particulars that edify the grounds move to the stream of mixed law and fact, and in some cases to facts and facts only.”
Also in Calabar Central Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. & 2 Other vs. Bassey Ebong Ekpo (2008) 6 NWLR part 1083 page 362
The Supreme Court laid down the general principles in making the distinction between different types of grounds of appeal. Some of the principles are as follows:-
(a) The grounds of appeal needs to be examined to see whether they reveal a misunderstanding of the lower Court of the law, or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted;
(b) Where a ground of appeal complains of a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law or a misapplication of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, it is a ground of law;
(c) Where a ground of appeal questions the evaluation of facts before the application of the law it is a ground of mixed law and fact;
(d) A ground which raises a question of pure fact is a ground of fact;
(e) Where the lower Court finds that particular events occurred although there is no admissible evidence before the court that the events did in fact occur, the ground is that of law;
(f) Where admissible evidence has been led, the assessment of that evidence is entirely for that Court and if there is a complaint about the assessment of the admissible evidence, the ground is that of fact;
(g) Where the lower Court approached the construction of a legal term of art in a statute on the erroneous basis that the statutory wording bears its ordinary meaning, the ground is that of law;
(h) Where the lower Court or tribunal applies the law to the facts in a process which requires the skill of a trained lawyer, it is a question of law;
(i) Where the lower Court reaches a conclusion which cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts as found, the appeal Court will assume that there has been a misconception of the law and it is a ground of law;
(j) Where the conclusion of the lower Court is one of possible resolution but one which the appeal Court would not have reached if siesed of the issue, the conclusion is not an error in law;
(k) Where a trial Court fails to apply the facts which it has found correctly to the circumstance of the case before it and there is an appeal to a Court of Appeal which alleges a misdirection in the exercise of the application by the trial Court, the ground of appeal alleging the misdirection is a ground of law, and not of fact;
(m) Where the appeal Court interferes in such a case and there is a further appeal to a higher Court of appeal on the application of the facts, the grounds of appeal alleging such misdirection by the lower Court of appeal is a ground of law and not of facts;
(n) A ground of appeal which complains that the decision of the trial court is against evidence or weight of evidence or contains unresolved contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, it is purely a ground of fact, which requires leave for an appeal to a Court of Appeal or a further Court of appeal.
– Board of Customs and Excise vs. Barau (1982) 10 S.C Page 48;
– Ogbechie vs. Onochie (No. 1) (1986) 2 NWLR Part 23 Page 484 referred to.The view of the Apex Court as enunciated above is instructive as it provides a way out in instances where the line between law and mixed law and fact poses difficulty.
The particulars of error as provided under Appellants’ ground one of the notice of appeal shows that the Court is being called upon to determine facts in the resolution of the dispute between the parties in respect of their affidavit evidence. In effect the facts are disputed.
As for ground two the particulars showed that the Court is being called upon to resolve the conflict in the 41 paragraph counter affidavit and affidavit in support of the application which led to the decision being appealed upon.
Clearly it is my view that the Appellants’ grounds 1 and 2 are grounds of mixed law and fact, they cannot be said to be a ground of law simpliciter.
Mere assertion on the part of the Appellants that the grounds of Appeal are based on error of law does not make them so, if the errors stated in the particulars are no more than those of facts or mixed law and facts.
This will now lead me to consider the question whether the Appellants should have sought leave of Court before proceeding with their notice of appeal.
Section 241 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides thus:-
“241 (1) An appeal shall lie from the decision of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases:-
(a) Final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance.
(b) Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings.”
Also section 242 (1) of the said 1999 Constitution provides as follows:-
“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 the Court of Appeal.”
A careful consideration of the provision of sections 241(1) (a) and (b) and 242 (1) of the 1999 Constitution would show that Section 241 (1) (b) allows an Appellant to appeal to the court of Appeal as of right on grounds of law alone on any decision (civil or criminal) of the trial court, then where the decision appealed against under the provision is interlocutory, the ground of appeal must be one of the law before the Appellant can appeal as of right otherwise, leave of the trial court or Court of Appeal is required under Section 242(1).
The position of the law will therefore be that an appeal against an interlocutory decision which is not on a ground of law alone is not competent when prior leave is not sought and obtained.
See- the following cases:-
– Nwadike vs. Ibekwe (1997) 4 NWLR part 67 page 718;
– Union Bank of Nigeria Plc vs. Olubosi Sogunro & Others (2006) 10 NWLR part 1006 page 504;
– Total International Ltd vs. Awogboro (1994) 4 NWLR Part 337 page 100.Now coming back to the case under consideration, leave of Court was not sought and obtained before filing the Appellants’ interlocutory appeal which appeal has been held earlier in this Judgment as based on grounds of mixed law and fact. The effect of failure by the Appellants to file an interlocutory appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact without the prior leave of either the trial High Court or the Court of Appeal is that the Notice of appeal would be rendered incompetent.
See- the case of:-
– Ojemeh vs. Momodu (1983) ISCNLR page 188;
– Madam Fatimo Welle vs. Joel Ajide Bagunjoko (2007) 6 NWLR Part 1029 Page 125 at 139-140.This second issue is resolved in favour of the 3rd Respondent.
In the final analysis, since I have found the appeal to be incompetent, it would not be necessary to go into the merit of the appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby struck out.
There shall be no order as to cost.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A: My learned brother BADA, JCA had availed me of a draft of the lead judgment written by him in this appeal.
From the record of the appeal, it is manifest that the appeal is against an interlocutory decision by the lower Court on grounds which are at best of mixed law and facts. By the provisions of Section 242(1) of the 1999 Constitution, such an appeal can only be validly filed with the leave of either the lower Court or this Court for it to be competent. In other words, leave of the Court must first be obtained as a precondition for such an appeal to be competent in law and be capable of effectively invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court over the appeal. Where such requisite or necessary leave was not obtained or given by the Court, as in the present appeal, a notice of such an appeal filed without it would be clearly incompetent and the court would lack the jurisdiction to act on it or entertain the appeal. See: OGIDI v. EGBA (1999) 10 NWLR (621) 42,
KASHADADI v. NOMA (2007) 13 NWLR (1052) 510,
UGBOAJA v. AKITOYE-SOWEMIMO (2008) 16 NWLR (1113) 278.
I am in complete agreement with the lead judgment that this appeal without prior leave of court as condition precedent to its validity, is incompetent and join in striking it out.
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A: I read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Bada JCA and I entirely agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusion arrived thereat.
It is trite that a notice of appeal filed without the leave of court, where leave is required, is incompetent and liable to be struck out. See AJIBI VS. OLAEWE (2003) 8 NWLR (PT. 822) 237; R.E.A.N. PLC VS. ANUMNU (2003) 6 NWLR (PT. 815) 52.
The Appellant herein filed the notice of appeal challenging an interlocutory decision. The grounds of appeal being of mix law and facts cannot be competently filed without the leave of Court as provided for under Section 242(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
For this and the more detailed reasons in the lead judgment, I too find the appeal incompetent and accordingly same is hereby struck out.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Appearances
M. P. D. ABALAKA For Appellant
AND
MR. KOLAPO for the 1st & 2nd Respondents.
B. J. AKOMOLAFE for the 3rd Respondent with him are ABIOLA O. LITAN (MRS) AND TAYO AKINMUWAGUN (MISS) For Respondent
