MR. INNOCENT KAFOR & ORS. V. MR. IBINABO DON PEDRO
(2011)LCN/4438(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 31st day of March, 2011
CA/PH/8M/2006
RATIO
STARE DECISIS: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL IS BOUND BY ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS
By the doctrine of stare decisis this court is bound by its previous decisions as well. PER M. DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, (OFR), J.C.A
AGENCY: WHEN DOES AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP ARISE
In Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 207) 1 at 6 cited with approval in university of Abuja v. Ologe (supra) it has been held thus: “the relationship of agency arises whenever one person, called the agent, has authority to act on behalf of another, called the principal and consents to act. Authority may also be implied from the subsequent assent of the principal. It is therefore trite law that agency arises manly from a contract or agreement between parties express or implied.” It must be added that agency is a relationship in which the agent has authority and the capacity to create legal relations between the principal and third parties see Niger progress Ltd. v. North East Line corporation (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 107) 68. PER M. DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, (OFR), J.C.A
FEDERAL HIGH COURT: CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE DISPUTES ARISING FROM INTEREST IN LAND
Again, learned Appellants, counsel is right that notwithstanding the State High court’s powers under the Land Use Act to hear and determine disputes arising from interest in, and pertaining the management and control of State land, the jurisdiction the federal High court enjoys by virtue of Section 251(1) r is total. The section provides: “251-(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters- (r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies; Provided that nothing in the provision (s) of paragraph(s) (p), (q) and (r) of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.” Under the foregoing, it does not matter that the executive decision or action which validity is being challenged and in respect of which the plaintiff seeks the declaration and/or injunction in the action relates to land or whatever. Once there is such an executive decision and/or action by the Federal Government or its agencies and a declaration or injunction is sought in respect of the validity of the decision or action that is being so questioned, the Federal High court to the exclusion of the State High court has the jurisdiction over the action. Neither the constitution itself nor any other statute can detract from the jurisdiction section 251 (1) (r) confers on the federal High Court. In any event, the jurisdiction of the lower court, a State High Court, has by virtue of S.272 of the Constitution been subjected to the section 251 of the Constitution. The consequence is that the federal High Court in respect of matters provided for under S. 251(1) (r) enjoys an overriding jurisdiction to the exclusion of the lower court. Thus in the instant case the action of the Respondent which challenges the purported allocation of the house in dispute to the 1st Defendant/Appellant by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Appellants who are agents of the Federal Government, by virtue of S.251(1)(r), can only be heard and determined by the Federal High court. The lower court lacks the jurisdiction to. PER M. DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, (OFR), J.C.A
JURISDICTION: WHETHER IT IS INJUSTICE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION WHERE NONE EXIST
In Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 508, the Supreme Court has held thus:- “There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the court and the parties. So to do … Once an issue of jurisdiction is raised it should be examined in all its ramifications. It should not be compartmentalized and subjected to piecemeal examination and treatment. The very many facts of jurisdiction should come under the search light and pronounced upon.” Had the lower court diligently applied itself it would have, on the face of the writ and statement of claim, found out the capacities in which the two defendants are sued and conclude that it lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant suit. PER M. DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, (OFR), J.C.A
Justices
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MR. INNOCENT KAFOR & ORS. Appellant(s)
AND
MR. IBINABO DON PEDRO Respondent(s)
M. DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, (OFR), J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The respondent in this appeal as plaintiff at the Rivers State High Court, commenced suit No. PHC/1014/2000 against the Appellants before us being the defendants. Respondent’s claim against the Appellants jointly and severally is for:-
“(1) A declaration that the plaintiff is the proper person entitled to the statutory right of occupancy and a fortiori to the use, occupation and enjoyment of all that property lying situate at Block 7B Road 22 Federal Housing Estate Woji in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area Rivers State.
(2) A declaration that the purported allocation of the said Block 78 Road 22 Federal Housing Estate Woji Obio/Akpor Local Government Area Rivers State to the 1st Defendant by letter Reference No. CWH/RV/WJ/279 dated 20/1/98 and signed by the 2nd defendant at the instance of the 3rd defendant is illegal, void and of no effect whatsoever.
(3) N1, 000,000.00k damages for trespass and
(4) Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants jointly and each of them severally from further trespass or interference with the Plaintiff s quiet possession of the said property.”
Before filing his statement of defence, the 1st defendant took out a preliminary objection urging the court that plaintiff’s suit be struck out for want of jurisdiction. It was argued for the 1st defendant that since the 2nd and 3rd defendants are agents of the Federal Government and plaintiffs claim is against the acts done by these agents on behalf of the federal government, the lower court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel to the plaintiff in reply argued otherwise.
In a considered ruling the court interalia held:-
“It is trite that in order to determine jurisdiction, the court has to look at the reliefs sought in the writ of summons or statement of claim if filed. In this case, the plaintiff has filed his claim—
The following (sic) reliefs being sought relate to statutory right of occupancy, trespass and injunction, which fall equally with the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Furthermore, the plaintiff in his statement of claim describes the defendant, to be an adverse claimant to the property and 2nd and 3rd defendant as staff of the Federal Ministry of works and Housing Port Harcourt. If there is any thing to the contrary pertaining to their status it will be deduced from evidence. It is to be noted that the defendants are yet to file their statement of defence, therefore this court has assume jurisdiction to hear this suit’ objection by the 2nd and 3rd defendants is hereby dismissed.”
Dissatisfied with the ruling, dated 16/6/2005, the defendants have appealed against same on a lone ground. Parties at the lower court would for our purpose be referred to as Appellants and Respondent respectively.
Following the neglect and/or Respondents’ refusal to file his brief of argument on being served the Appellants’ brief, the latter sought and obtained the court’s leave for the appeal to be heard on their briefs alone. At the hearing of the Appeal, learned Appellants’ counsel adopted and relied on their brief of argument at paragraph 2.0 of which the lone issue distilled for the determination of the appeal reads:-
“Whether the lower State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit on appeal, in view of the fact that some of the Defendants are agencies/agents of the federal Government and the issues before that court border on management or administrative decisions of the federal Government.”
It is argued in the brief that from the title of Appellants’ suit and particularly the combined effect of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 13, 19, 20(1) and (2) of the statement of claim it is clear that the 2nd and 3rd Appellants are agents or agencies of the federal Government. Respondent’s claim, it shows from his claim, arises from the administrative and/or management decision of these agents or agencies. By section 251(1) p, (q) and (r) of the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the Federal High Court, learned Appellants’ counsel contends, has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.
The lower court, it is submitted, clearly errs by holding that given the reliefs the respondent seeks, it has jurisdiction in the matter. The Federal Government owns the land on which the property to which Respondent’s claims relate is situate. The Land Use Act, learned counsel contends, contemplates ownership of land by the federal Government and clearly excludes the management powers of the state over such lands. Respondent’s suit, it is submitted, questions the administrative decision of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in the management of the property in dispute. These two, it is restated, are agents of the federal Government. The jurisdiction of the court below notwithstanding the provisions of Section 272 (I) of the 1999 Constitution, and the combined operation of Sections 39 and 51 of the Land Use Act, given Section 251(1) (r) of the constitution does not certainly extend to land owned and managed by the federal Government but such Land granted or deemed to be granted by and managed by the Governor.
Learned counsel further posits that the objection to jurisdiction can be raised on the respondent’s writ and/or statement of claim and needs not necessarily await the filing of the statement of defence for either the objection to make sense or to be determined. Cited and relied upon are A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. the federation (2003) FWLR (Pt. 168) 909 at 1013. Oruba v. NEC (1938) 12 SCNJ 254, Matari v. Dangaladima (1993) 2 SCNJ 122, Oyerinde v. ONI (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt.649) 348, Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) All FWLR (Pt.353) 3, Abdul Raheem v. Oloruntoba-Oju (2007) All FWLR (Pt.354) 267 and Jang v. INEC (2004) All FWLR (Pt.200) 1545.
Concluding his arguments, learned counsel concedes that 1st Appellant is not an agency of the Federal Governor. That alone, he however argues, does not vest the lower court with jurisdiction over a matter that concerns alleged wrong decisions of agents of the federal Government. At best, the lower court would be said to have partial jurisdiction as against the federal High Court that has full jurisdiction and over all the parties. Learned counsel cites and relies on Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 117) 517 at 549, Ali v. CBN (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt.498) 192 and Daifam (Nig.) Ltd v. Okakwu International Ltd (2001) 15 NWLR (pt.735) 203 at 240. He urges that their lone issue be resolved in Appellants’ favour and the Appeal allowed.
The determination of the appeal calls for the interpretation and application of Section 251 (1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution to the facts of the matter at hand.
In Ali v. CBN (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 498) 192 this court while interpreting Section 230 (1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No.107 which is pari materia to Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 constitution this court at page 202 of the law report restated thus:-
“This section in its ordinary meaning is intended to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court in matter specified therein. My learned brother Orah J.C.A. had the same view and put it at p. 722 on the case of university of Abuja v. Prof. K.O. Otoge (supra) thus:-
“In the instant case, in which section 230(1) (q) (r) and (s) confers the exercise of jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes or matters arising from:-
(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies — the provision of section 230(1) – (r) – which clearly confers jurisdiction exclusively on the Federal High Court in instance such as this is not difficult to see. The issue is not one of interpretation statutory provisions. The provisions are clear and unambiguous and do not admit of what counsel or Judge thinks otherwise they are.’
In that case the respondent had sued the appellant in the Federal High Court Jos challenging his suspension from office, and the appellant had argued a preliminary objection that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction because the University of Abuja was an agent of the Federal Government and not an agency. The Federal High Court over-ruled the preliminary objection of the appellant and on appeal, the Court of Appeal, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the ruling of the Federal High Court.”
The court further maintained its decision as enunciated above in the case of Ayeni v. University of Ilorin (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 644) 290. In the case, the Appellant who was engaged by the Respondent as the consultant quality surveyor for its law faculty building project had his consultancy terminated by the Respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant instituted an action against the Respondent at the state High Court for the outstanding balance due for payment on account of the consultancy services he rendered, and general damages for libel contained in respondent’s letter that terminated the consultancy.
The Respondent by a motion on notice challenged the competence of the trial court, Kwara State High court, over Appellant’s suit. It was contended that Appellant’s suit having touched on the administrative and management decision of an agency of the federal Government, only the federal High Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine same. The trial court upheld Respondent’s objection and struck out Appellant’s action, on appeal at this court, the appellant argued that even though the respondent is an agency of the federal Government, the state High court could assume jurisdiction on the strength of the proviso to section 230(1) of the 1979 constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993. In dismissing the appeal, this court at page 304 of the law report stated this:-
“In the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that the appointment of the Appellant as quantity surveyor consultant for the respondents’ faculty Law project and/or the termination of such appointment were both an executive and administrative decision on the part of the respondent. I am also of the view that the action instituted by the appellant arose from the administrative and executive decision of the respondent to terminate the appointment of the appellant by the letter dated 18th July 1994. Consequently, I have no doubt that the action instituted by the appeal is caught by section 230(1)(q)(m) and (s) of the Constitution of 1979 as amended by Decree 107 of 1993.”
The court in line with its two earlier decisions on the issue upheld the appeal and concluded thus:-
“Section 230(1) of the constitution as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 divested the state High court of jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate on matters which touch on the administration or management or control of the federal Government or any of its agencies and vested same exclusively in the federal High court the jurisdiction of the State High court in determining the appellants’ claim as in this case has been ousted notwithstanding the proviso to section 230(1)(q)(r) and (s) as amended by Decree 107 of 1993”
See also UTB (Nig) Ltd v. Ukpabia (2000) 8 NWLR (pt.670) 570 and university of Makurdi v. Jack (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt.679) 658. Even the learned Appellant’s counsel seem to suggest that decisions of this court other than the foregoing might inform a different interpretation of Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 constitution as it applies to the facts of the instant case.
I do not subscribe to that view and I am not unmindful of the decision of this court in Appeal No. CA/L/195/2002 as affirmed by the Supreme court in Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169.
In that case, the Appellants instituted an action at the Lagos division of the federal High court claiming title to the land they occupied as against the 1st Respondent’s claim. They further sought a declaration that the court’s judgment in suit No. FHC/L/CS/820/95 was null and void having proceeded without service of the court’s processes having been served on some of the parties. Appellants also asked the trial court to restrain the defendants/Respondents from interfering with their possession of the land in dispute.
The 1st Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court which, after arguments, overruled the objection and assumed jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the decision, the 1st Respondent appealed to the court of Appeal which allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellants, that is the plaintiffs at the lower court, appealed further to the Supreme court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal. In interpreting and applying Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 constitution to the facts of the case under review, and affirming this court’s decision that the trial court lacked jurisdiction into the matter Mohammed JSC first provided the approach to adopt at page 191 of the law report thus:
“Coming back to the provisions of section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution, this court had given guidance on proper approach to the interpretation of section 230 of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 which is pari materia with section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The need to examine the parties in the litigation as well as the subject matter of the litigation was strongly advised for close scrutiny in resolving the issue. In construing the parties, the court will have no difficulty in identifying the Federal Government but it may have difficulty in identifying an agency of the Federal Government in certain matters.
See N.E.P.A. v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 789) 79 at 100… What remains to be considered therefore is the subject matter of the plaintiffs/appellants claims to see whether or not the claims can be accommodated under section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution…What the provision in question provides is that the Federal High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters in:
“(r) any action or proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies”.”
His lordship then applied the principles he propounded to the facts of the case – at page 191 – 192 of the law report as follows:-
“In the instant case, although the claims indeed include a declaration and injunction, there is nothing to show that the declaration and injunction being claimed relate or affect the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies… Thus, as the executive action of the Federal Government in compulsorily acquiring the land in dispute is not being challenged by the plaintiffs/appellants in their instant action, there is no opening whatsoever for the Federal High Court to come into the matter in exercise of its original jurisdiction under section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution. Close examination of the entire provisions of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution prescribing the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to the exclusion of all other courts, there is nothing therein specifically conferring jurisdiction in that court in causes or matters concerning land disputes… Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain land matters cannot be inferred by implication in the construction of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution the meaning of which is quite clear and plain as no causes or matters in land dispute are mentioned therein.”(Underlining supplied for emphasis).
Having found that Section 251(1)(r) had not conferred jurisdiction on the trial court, his lordship considered Section 39(1) and Section 41 of the Land Use Act which he also found did not conger the Federal High Court jurisdiction in land matters. For the two reasons, his lordship upheld the decision of the court of Appeal that had earlier held that much.
My understanding of the foregoing decision of the apex court is that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution depends squarely on the parties as well as the subject matter of the action being litigated upon. Once it is shown that the defendant before the trial court is either the Federal Government or any of its agencies and the plaintiff therein seeks declaration and injunction in relation to an executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, then the Federal High Court would enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Otherwise and being in respect of land not having been conferred with jurisdiction under S.39(1) and S.41 of the land Use Act, the Federal High Court would lack the jurisdiction over such matters.
In this appeal the question to answer is whether the facts of the instant matter come within the purview of section 251(1)(r) as interpreted by this court in the decisions earlier alluded to in this judgment. We cannot adopt a different approach. By the doctrine of stare decisis this court is bound by its previous decisions as well. The lower court that appears to have departed from this court’s decisions in respect of the same law and facts must be reminded the words of Uwais CJN as he then was in Atolagbe and another v. Awuri and 2 others (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.522) 536 thus:
“With regard to the Learned Trial Judge’s refusal to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal in Gambari’s case (supra) in preference to the decision of this court in Bakare’s case (supra) I am of the view that the learned trial Judge’s insubordination calls for deprecation”.
In the case at hand the defendants/Appellants in paragraph 3(i) (k) and (1) of the affidavit in support of their objection averred to facts on the basis of which they urged the lower court to decline jurisdiction thus:
“3(i) that the 2nd and 3rd ate agents to the federal Ministry of Works and Housing Rivers State and act in that capacity.
(k) That the capacity in which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are sued is improper.
(l) That the proper person to be sued is Federal Ministry of Works and Housing Rivers State.”(underlining supplied for emphasis).
These averments constitute admission of the facts therein stated. Besides, Respondent’s writ of summons and statement of claim show very clearly that the instant action is commenced against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Appellants in their official capacities. The one is the zonal Town Planning officer, Federal Ministry of works and Housing, Rivers State while the other is the federal controller of Works and Housing in the same state. The reliefs being claimed by the respondent is squarely for a declaration and an injunction against the alleged wrongful allocation of the property in dispute by the 2nd and 3rd defendants/Appellants to the 1st Defendants/Appellant. The fact of the allocation of the property by the two officers is undeniably the executive action and/or decision of the federal Government or its agents being challenged which by Section 251 (1) (r) of the 1999 constitution is to be heard and determined exclusively by the Federal High Court. The lower court’s jurisdiction over the matter has been completely ousted by the constitutional provision. In Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 207) 1 at 6 cited with approval in university of Abuja v. Ologe (supra) it has been held thus:
“the relationship of agency arises whenever one person, called the agent, has authority to act on behalf of another, called the principal and consents to act. Authority may also be implied from the subsequent assent of the principal. It is therefore trite law that agency arises manly from a contract or agreement between parties express or implied.”
It must be added that agency is a relationship in which the agent has authority and the capacity to create legal relations between the principal and third parties see Niger progress Ltd. v. North East Line corporation (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 107) 68. In the instant case the materials before the lower court are sufficient to enable the conclusion that 2nd and 3rd defendants are agents of the Federal Government and their decisions or actions are those of the principal, the Federal Government.
Again, learned Appellants, counsel is right that notwithstanding the State High court’s powers under the Land Use Act to hear and determine disputes arising from interest in, and pertaining the management and control of State land, the jurisdiction the federal High court enjoys by virtue of Section 251(1) r is total. The section provides:
“251-(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-
(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
Provided that nothing in the provision (s) of paragraph(s) (p), (q) and (r) of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.”
Under the foregoing, it does not matter that the executive decision or action which validity is being challenged and in respect of which the plaintiff seeks the declaration and/or injunction in the action relates to land or whatever. Once there is such an executive decision and/or action by the Federal Government or its agencies and a declaration or injunction is sought in respect of the validity of the decision or action that is being so questioned, the Federal High court to the exclusion of the State High court has the jurisdiction over the action. Neither the constitution itself nor any other statute can detract from the jurisdiction section 251 (1) (r) confers on the federal High Court. In any event, the jurisdiction of the lower court, a State High Court, has by virtue of S.272 of the Constitution been subjected to the section 251 of the Constitution. The consequence is that the federal High Court in respect of matters provided for under S. 251(1) (r) enjoys an overriding jurisdiction to the exclusion of the lower court. Thus in the instant case the action of the Respondent which challenges the purported allocation of the house in dispute to the 1st Defendant/Appellant by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Appellants who are agents of the Federal Government, by virtue of S.251(1)(r), can only be heard and determined by the Federal High court. The lower court lacks the jurisdiction to.
Lastly, the court is in error to have deferred its decision on the objection till evidence has been led and the capacities in which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Appellants are sued has become manifest. As already demonstrated in this judgment, the capacity in which the two are sued is, from the writ and claim, clear and the court’s conclusion to the contrary is therefore perverse. In Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 508, the Supreme Court has held thus:-
“There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the court and the parties. So to do … Once an issue of jurisdiction is raised it should be examined in all its ramifications. It should not be compartmentalized and subjected to piecemeal examination and treatment.
The very many facts of jurisdiction should come under the search light and pronounced upon.”
Had the lower court diligently applied itself it would have, on the face of the writ and statement of claim, found out the capacities in which the two defendants are sued and conclude that it lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant suit. I so hold. The lone issue for the determination of the appeal is resolved in favour of the Appellants and the appeal allowed. The perverse ruling of the lower court is hereby accordingly set-aside. The Appellants are entitled to cost assessed and ordered at N50, 000 against the Respondent.
EJEMBI EKO, J.C.A: I read in advance the judgment just delivered in this appeal by my learned brother, M.D. MUHAMMAD (OFR), JCA. Agreeing entirely with the analyses of the issues and the conclusions on them, I have nothing further to add. I hereby adopt the judgment and the consequential orders made therein.
For avoidance of any doubt I hereby allow the appeal and abide by orders as to costs.
T. O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A.: I have the privilege of having gone through the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother M. D. MUHAMMAD (OFR) JCA, I agree with the reasonings and conclusion therein.
I have nothing to add to it. This appeal is allowed. I abide by the order as to costs made in the lead judgment.
>
Appearances
J.S. Awude
C. Igwe (Miss)For Appellant
AND
Respondents is on noticeFor Respondent
