MRS. IBUKUNOLA MUSE & ANOR v. KOLA AGORO & ANOR
(2012)LCN/5264(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 28th day of March, 2012
CA/I/262/2007
RATIO
ACTION: WHETHER A COURT CAN GRANT A CLAIM NOT SOUGHT
A court has no power to grant to a party that which he does not claim, nor that which does not appear in the pleadings, nor to award more than what the parties have claimed – See Elumeze v. Elumeze (1969) 1 ALL NLR 311, Chief Registrar v. Vamos (1976) 1 SC 33 at 40-41 and Obioma v. Olomu (1978) 3 SC 1 at 7-8. PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
COURT: DUTY OF A COURT RAISING ISSUES SUO MOTU
Therefore, no matter how obvious or innocuous the issue might have appeared to be to the court below, it had the duty to invite the parties to address it on it after raising it suo motu – See Ogundoyin & ors v. Adeyemi (2001) 7 NSCQR 378 – 379, per Ayoola, J.S.C. (as he was) thus –
“That a party should be given an opportunity, of being heard before a decision is made against him is a fundamental principle of justice that pre-dated our constitution … a person denied such opportunity and who has complained cannot be confronted with a response that would have had nothing worth while to say had he been given an opportunity of a hearing.”
See also Abass v. Solomon (supra) and Alli v. Alesinloye (supra) cited by Mr. Uwawah for the appellants. PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. MRS. IBUKUNOLA MUSE
2. MR. AKINGBOGUN Appellant(s)
AND
1. KOLA AGORO
2. L.A. YUSUFF Respondent(s)
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment): The appeal emerged from the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State holding in Ibadan (the court below) dismissing the respondents’ suit with an order directing the Chief Registrar of High Court of Justice, Oyo State, to put the disputed landed property under seal.
In outline, the respondents as plaintiffs at the court below claimed by their amended statement of claim a declaration to statutory right of occupancy to the plot of land with a bungalow and/or appurtenant thereon together with an order of possession of the said premises and an injunction restraining the defendants and any one claiming through them from going on the landed property in dispute. The evidence disclosed that the disputed plot of land with the building thereon is situate at NW4/102 Ekotedo, North West Ibadan Local Government area of Oyo State. It originally belonged to Madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke who bequeathed it in writing to one Bolaji Osho (now deceased); one Aarinade Okanlawon (now deceased), and one Enitan Osho, before her death on 7.12.1983, with instruction that the landed property should not be sold or mortgaged.
The 1st defendant at the court below purporting to act as the agent of one Bolaji Osho, one of the devisees, advertised for sale and eventually sold the disputed plot of land to the 1st appellant through the 2nd appellant, in 1993, after the purchase price of N50,000 was paid to Bolaji Osho by the 1st appellant through the 2nd appellant before the 1st appellant was put in possession of the disputed land.
The court below decided on the merit that the respondents lacked the capacity to sue as executors and/or trustees of the estate of late Madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke; nor did the 2nd respondent adduce evidence of his blood relationship with the deceased madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke to establish that he is a beneficiary of the disputed property.
The court below also declared the purchase agreement of the disputed land in Exhibit D illegal, null and void and issued a consequential order mandating the Chief Registrar of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State to put under seal the conveyance of the disputed landed property at NW4/102 Ekotedo, Iya-Olobe registered as No.46, page 46 volume 604 at the Lands Registry, Ibadan.
The defendants at the court below were not satisfied with the decision and filed a notice of appeal comprising two grounds of appeal challenging part of the judgment of the court below respecting the order of nullification of the purchase agreement, Exhibit D, and the order sealing the conveyance in Exhibit A by the Chief Registrar of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State. The respondents as plaintiffs at the court below did not challenge the decision.
The appellants’ brief of argument dated and filed on 4.3.08, but deemed properly filed on 18.11.08, distilled two issues for determination as follows –
“Whether Exhibit D on which no issue was joined by the parties, is illegal, null and void in the circumstances of this case.
Whether the Appellants were given fair hearing before the court suo-motu invoked the provisions of order 47 Rule 1 and order 49 Rule 2 and 3 to order the property in dispute to be put under seal.”
It was contended on the first issue that by paragraphs 3, 12, 12A, 13 and 14 of the amended statement of claim in pages 55-56 of the record of appeal (the record) read with paragraph 6 of the amended reply to the amended statement of defence in pages 57-58 of the record considered against the backdrop of the pieces of evidence for the respondents in pages 39 line 21-31, 42 lines 29-33 and 43 lines 5-6, 10-12, that the legality or otherwise of Exhibit D was not put in issue in the court below, therefore the court below strayed outside the issues joined in the pleadings contrary to the principle of pleadings in the adversary system of justice that only issues in controversy in the pleadings be adjudicated upon by the court, therefore the portion of the judgment of the court below holding Exhibit D illegal, null and void having not been part of the case put across by the respondents in their pleadings, the appeal should be allowed on this issue following the cases of Atolagbe v. Shorun (1985) 1 NWLR 360 at 365, Odekilekun v. Hassan (1997) 12 SCNJ 114 at 129, Lipede v. Shonekan (1995) 1 SCNJ 184 at 197-198 and Unical v. Essien (1996) 12 SCNJ 238.
It was also contended that Exhibit D was admitted in evidence without objection and qualifies as a receipt or acknowledgement of payment of purchase price by the appellants equating it with an equitable interest in respect of the disputed landed property capable of conversion into a legal estate that can attract the grant of a certificate of occupancy in respect of the disputed plot of land following the cases of Shobojo v. Ikotun (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.840) 237 at 257 and Thompson v. Arowolo (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 818) 163 at 210 and 229.
It was contended on the second issue that there was consensus evidence that the landed property was sold by a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased, Madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke, one Bolaji osho, without the pleadings and the evidence raising the issue whether the disputed property be put under seal, therefore the court below was wrong to raise and resolve the issue suo-motu without affording the parties opportunity to be heard contrary to the right of the appellants to fair hearing vide the cases Abass v. Solomon (2001) 7 SCNJ 546 at 565 and Alli v. Alesinloye (2000) 4 SCNJ 264 at 269, on account of which the appellants urged that the appeal be allowed and part of the judgment of the court below declaring Exhibit D illegal, null and void and the other part thereof ordering the property in dispute to be put under seal be set aside in consequence.
The respondents’ brief of argument dated 16.1.09 and filed on 14.5.09 but deemed properly filed on 1.6.09 earmarked two identical issues for determination in page 3 thereof.
The respondents’ brief advocated on the first issue that paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the statement of defence together with paragraph 6 of the reply to the statement of defence raised the issue of the validity of the purchase agreement, Exhibit D, which was admitted in evidence without objection and formed part of the record of the court below and was related to Exhibit A, the registered conveyance of the disputed land dated 24.8.1962 with registration No.46 at page 46 in volume 604 at the Lands Registry office, Ibadan, therefore the court below was right to declare Exhibit D null under sections 21, 22, of the and Use Act, 1978, read with the case of International ile Industries (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Aderemi (2000). Nigerian Land Law cases 275 at 325-327, as the alienation of the disputed land in Exhibit D was without the requisite consent of the Governor, all the more so Exhibit D, an unregistered document, was only evidence of receipt for payment and could not have conferred title to the disputed plot of land on the 1st appellant and was, also, inadmissible in evidence in virtue of section 16 of the Lands Instrument Registration Law, Cap. 56, Laws of Oyo State, 1978 and the case of Tewogbade v. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 326) 356.
It was submitted further on the first issue that one Bolaji Osho being one of the three beneficiaries in the Exhibit B could not without the consent of the other beneficiaries pass title in the landed property to the 1st appellant and the purported sale of plot of land narrated in the evidence of the 1st-2nd respondents in pages 39 (lines 21-22, 26 to 29) and 42 (lines 29-35) of the record when the vendor had no title in the land to pass to the 1st appellant was rightly declared null and void by the court below.
The respondents’ brief advocated on the second issue that Order 47 Rule 1 and Order 49 Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of the court below are sourced from the inherent jurisdiction of the court below under section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and is for the purpose of doing justice which can be invoked suo motu by the court below without inviting arguments from the parties, therefore it is untenable to argue that the court below breached the appellants’ right to fair hearing by suo motu invoking the said Orders 47 and 49 of its Rules, all the more so the said Rules of court do not make room for the invitation of submissions from the parties before they would be applied by the court below. It was on account of the submissions (supra) that Chief Lawson, respondents’ learned counsel, advocated for the dismissal of the appeal.
The issues for determination formulated by the appellants’ learned counsel, Mr. Uwawah, and adopted by the respondents are, in my view, appropriate for the consideration of the appeal and same shall be followed in the discussion of the appeal.
It is necessary to resort to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties in the court below to gauge whether Exhibit D, the purchase agreement, was in issue between the parties. Paragraphs 1-3, 9, 10 and 11-16 of the amended statement of claim averred –
“1. By virtue of the Deed of Conveyance dated 29th day of August, 1967 and registered as No, 46 at page 46 in Volume 604 of the Lands Registry Office, Ibadan. Late Madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke became seised and possessed of in fee simple absolute of the land in dispute situate at Ekotedo, Ibadan.
2. Late Madam Sophianah Durojaiye Abeke in her life-time subsequently erected a house which consists of five rooms, four parlours, toilets, bathrooms on the land in dispute and an open space at the backyard situate at NW4/102 Ekotedo, Ibadan.
3. By her Will dated 4th December, 1981 in her lifetime Late Madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke devised the house together with the land referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above to Bolaji Osho, Madam Arinade Okanlawon and Enitan Osho with specific instructions that the said house should not be sold or mortgaged for raising loan.
9. Bolaji Osho is dead but survived by 2nd Plaintiff who is suing as beneficiary under the Will. Madam Arinade Okanlawon is also dead but survived by the 3rd Plaintiff who is also suing as beneficiary under the Will. 1st Plaintiff is suing as Executor and Trustee under the said Will.
10. Plaintiffs have also exercised acts of ownership in the house in dispute for years.
11. During the life-time of Bolaji Osho, 3rd Plaintiff collected rents from tenants on behalf of Bolaji Osho and the Plaintiffs, kept rents collected with Bolaji Osho who kept in his bank account because the arrangement was to spend rents collected to improve the Plaintiffs house in dispute. Bolaji Osho kept rents in his Bank account until he died.
12. Sometimes in 1995, in the life-time of Bolaji Osho, 3rd plaintiff went to the house in dispute to collect rents but was informed by one of the Plaintiffs tenants called Mama Urhrobo that they (tenants) have received letters from a person who alleged that the house was purportedly sold by Bolaji Osho.
12a. As soon as 3rd Plaintiff received the information, he wrote two letters to 1st defendant to inform him that the landed property in dispute originally belonged to late Madam Sophiana Durojaiye and was not for sale.
13. 3rd plaintiff latter called a meeting of the Plaintiff’s and Michael Bolaji Osho who did not ratify the purported sale but mandated the 3rd Plaintiff to contact Solicitor. Michael Bolaji Osho did not disclose name of Purchaser.
14. 3rd Plaintiff immediately did contact Messrs. A. A. Araromi Solicitors who caused letter of instructions of 30th June, 1995 to be written to Michael Bolaji Osho and copied to 1st and 3rd Plaintiffs, and 1st defendants. 1st and 2nd Defendants and Michael Bolaji Osho did not reply the letter. Plaintiffs will at trial rely on the said letter.
15. Since January, 2000, 3rd Defendant had trespassed on the house in dispute and which trespass still continues.
16. WHEREOF the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants are:-
1. Declaration to statutory Right of occupancy to the piece of land together with the house which consists of five rooms, four Parlours, Toilets, Bathrooms and open space at the backyard situate at NW4/102 Ekotedo Ibadan.
2. Possession of the Said houses and its premises.
3. An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents privies or anymore claiming through them from going on the landed property in dispute.”
Paragraphs 7, 9, 9-13 of the amended statement of defence in page 76 of the record traversed that –
“7. The defendants aver in relation to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Amended Statement of Claim that
Bolaji Osho was the only person exercising acts of ownership over the land in dispute and the house thereon.
8. The Defendants aver that in exercise of his right of ownership of the landed property, Bolaji Osho instructed the 1st Defendant to eject all the tenants in the house before the sale of the land and the house thereon and the instruction was carried out and the tenants were ejected by the Order of Court.”
The amended reply by the respondents as plaintiffs to the amended statement of defence in page 57 of the record pleaded in paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof –
“6. With further reference to paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of statement of defence, plaintiffs deny purported sale of the landed property in dispute and will contend at trial that the said purported sale is null, void and of no effect on the following grounds vis:-
(a) Testator in her will of 4th December, 1981 directed that the executors not to sell, mortgage or use the house for lending money. Intention of the testator supersedes the inordinate ambition and illegal act of a beneficiary under the Will.
(b) Purported sale was without the knowledge and consent of the executors and the Plaintiffs.
(c) Bolaji Osho being a limited DEVISEE under the Will could not alone sell the house in dispute.
7. With reference to paragraph 12 of statement of defence, it was 2nd and 3rd defendants in the presence
of witnesses who approached 3rd plaintiff and offered him money so that he might consent to purported sale of the house in dispute but 3rd plaintiff did not accede to their request.”
It can be seen from paragraphs 9, 10, 11-16 of the amended statement of claim (supra), paragraphs 8, 9-13 of the amended statement of defence (supra) and paragraphs 6 and 7 of the amended reply (supra) that the parties joined issue on the validity of the purchase of the disputed land by the 1st appellant with paragraph 6 of the amended reply to the amended statement of defence specifically and emphatically placing the appellants on notice that the respondents would contest the validity of the sale inter-alia in these words –
“…plaintiffs deny purported sale of the landed property in dispute and will contend at the trial that the said purported sale is null, void and of no effect…”
The appellants are, accordingly, wrong to contend that the validity of the sale of the disputed piece of land evidenced by the purchase agreement in Exhibit D was not raised in the pleadings in the court below. Coming to the evidence, the PW1 testified in examination – in-chief inter-alia – statement of claim.” (My emphasis) “The original devisees viz Bolaji Osho is dead (ii) Aarinade is also dead and (iii) Enitan is dead. I am in court because I heard that the property has been sold by Bolaji Osho to Mrs. Ibukunola Muse (in her life-time). As an executor to the will I was not aware when the properly was sold. I want this court to preserve the original estate of Madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke. I claim by the
The PW1 answered under cross-examination inter-alia that –
“I became aware of the sale of the subject matter in this suit in 1995 … Between, 1995 and 2000 I approached Bolaji Osho and he denied sale of property. I believed him. I told 3rd plaintiff that I called Bolaji Osho who denied selling the property. Yusuff said otherwise and I told him to file an action…”
The DW1, an estate agent, also testified on the sale of the disputed plot of land and the sale agreement was tendered through him as Exhibit D. The DW2, the father of the 1st appellant, too gave evidence confirming the sale of the disputed piece of land to the 1st appellant evidenced by Exhibit D and the ruckus it brought through the opposition or challenge of one Yusuff, the 2nd plaintiff, in the court below that the disputed piece of land was not sold to them. The DW2 added in his evidence-in-chief that –
“…During the pendency of this case after the court process I quickly rushed to Lagos to meet Bolaji
Osho. I met his wife who informed me that Bolaji Osho was dead. I told the widow what mission that the house sold to me one Lati was challenge me that there was no sale to me…”
So the issue of the sale of the disputed land and the furor it brought featured in the evidence adduced by the respondents and the appellants in the court below. The court below had these comments to make in respect of the sale of the disputed land –
“The purported sale of land via Exhibit ‘D’ relates to alienation and surrender of right of occupancy of land and requisite consent has not been shown to have been obtained as required by either section 21 or section 22 of the Land Use Act, 1978. Exhibit ‘A’ is backed by the force of Section 34(2) of the Land Use Act 1978 as a deemed grant whereas Exhibit ‘D’ conflicts with Exhibit A and not Governor’s consent has been obtained on it.”
I think the court below was right to make the holding (supra) which was based on the live issue of whether the sale of the disputed land was in conformity to the relevant provisions of the Land Use Act, 1978 – See Lt. Col. Finnih v. Imade (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.219) 511 at 537 thus:
“In my opinion as long as the issues on which the judgment is based are findings of facts arising from the pleadings and evidence before the court, the fact that the court has in the determination of the issues applied principles of law not cited by learned counsel, will not affect the decision. This has always been the accepted law” (Per Kabiri-Whyte, J.S.C. as he was)…
Then at page 542 of the law report:
“The gist of the appellant’s complaint is that the Court of Appeal acted on wrong legal principles when it, suo motu, and without hearing counsel determined the appeal on the basis of the Legal Notice and the Edict which were not cited to it. In my respectful opinion, this complaint is misplaced… the laws to be applied by a court in all cases are not limited to only those authorities statutory and judicial, which have been cited for the court’s consideration by counsel on both sides. Rather, the include those laws which the court can judicially notice as well as those relevant to the issues before the court which the court can from its own research find out.” (Per Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C. (as he was, but now of blessed memory).
Flowing from the discourse (supra), I see no merit in the arguments by the appellants on the first issue for determination.
I desire if I may to observe in passing on the first issue that the court below wisely, in my view, merely declared the purchase agreement in Exhibit D null and void without making an order setting it aside, as what is void is void simpliciter and cannot be set aside and must be left so without more – See Animashawun v. Osuma (1972) 7 NSCC 253 at 260 –
“…we Observe with respect that a void transaction cannot be set aside because being void ab initio there could be nothing to set aside…”
See also Abiodun & Ors. v. Adehin (1962) 1 ALL NLR 550 at 554, Akpene v. Barclays Bank (1977) 1 S.C. 47 at 59, N.H.D.S. v. Umumuni (1977) 2 SC 57 at 85-86 and Peenok Ltd. v. Hotel Presidential Ltd. (1982) 12 SC 1 at 100-101.
The appellants did not counter-claim that Exhibit D be treated as vesting them with an equitable interest in the disputed plot of land capable of conversion into a legal estate that would entitle the 1st appellant to the issuance of a statutory right of occupancy covering it, therefore the court below was not expected to hold Exhibit D was such a document. I would for the reasons given (supra), resolve the first issue against the appellants.
The court below after dismissing the suit made the following order complained of under the second issue for determination –
“This suit from the issues treated above is accordingly dismissed.
By the provisions of order 47 Rule 1 and order 49 Rule (2) and (3) of the High court (civil procedure) Rules 2000 the property at NW4/102 Ekotedo, Iya – Olobe, Ibadan covered by conveyance registered as No. 46, page Volume 604 of the Lands Registry, Ibadan shall be put under seal by the Chief Registrar of High court of Justice, Oyo State, until it can be dealt with according to law by the legitimate beneficiaries of the Late Madam Sophiana Durojaiye Abeke or the Administrator General, Oyo State according to S. 16 of Administrator General Law, Cap 2, Laws of Oyo State 2000.
There shall be no order as to cost in this suit.”
The reliefs sought by the respondents as plaintiffs in the court below were stated in paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim as follows:
“WHEREOF the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants are:-
(1) Declaration to statutory Right of Occupancy to the piece of land together with the house which consists of five rooms, four Parlours, Toilets, Bathrooms and open space at the backyard situate at NW4/102 Ekotedo Ibadan.
(2) Possession of the said houses and its premises.
(3) An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents privies or anymore claiming through them from going on the landed property in dispute.”
It is patently clear from the reliefs stated in paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim (supra) that the respondents as plaintiffs in the court below did not request for the relief granted by the court below.
The parties did not also join issues on putting the property in dispute under seal. A court has no power to grant to a party that which he does not claim, nor that which does not appear in the pleadings, nor to award more than what the parties have claimed – See Elumeze v. Elumeze (1969) 1 ALL NLR 311, Chief Registrar v. Vamos (1976) 1 SC 33 at 40-41 and Obioma v. Olomu (1978) 3 SC 1 at 7-8. In addition, the order of dismissal of the suit entered by the court below put an end to its powers to issue the order complained of as its authority over the suit had gone. More fundamentally, the order in question amounted to the granting of a remedy suo motu and the elementary right of fair hearing entrenched in section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, which is supreme to any other law or rule of court such as the Rules of the court below, behoved the court below to invite arguments from counsel and/or to afford the parties concerned with the litigation the opportunity to make an input on the issue before issuing the order it made.
I am therefore not persuaded by the argument of the respondents’ learned counsel that the court below exercised its inherent powers to do justice by invoking the said provisions of its Rules of Court suo motu and that the said provisions did not provide for counsel or the parties to be given the opportunity to react to them before the court below would invoke them – See Adeosun v. Babalota (1972) 1 ALL N.L.R (Pt. 2) 120 at 126 as follows –
“As a general rule this Court has always regarded with disfavour the practice of a court giving a decision on a point not argued before it. In Obazke Ogiamien and Anor. v. Obahon Ogiamien (1967) N.M.L.R. 245, this court said at pages 248 and 249:-
“This court has pointed out on several occasion that it is wrong for a judge to give a decision on a point on which opportunity was not afforded counsel to argue at the hearing was not raised.”
(See also The Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church, Lagos Area v. Rahman Akindele (1967) N.M.L.R. 263).”
Further, in Araka v. Ejeagwu (2001) FWLR (Pt. 36) 830 at 848, the great jurist Katsina-Alu J.S.C., (later C.J.N.) held inter-alia-
“Also, on no account should a court of law raise a point suo motu no matter how clear it may appear to be and proceed to resolve it one way or the other without hearing the parties, particularly the party that may be adversely affected as a result of the point so raised. If it does so, it will be in breach of the parties right to fair hearing… See Olatunji v. Adisa (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.376) 167; ORO v. Falade (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt.396) 385; Oje v. Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt.185) 267.”
Therefore, no matter how obvious or innocuous the issue might have appeared to be to the court below, it had the duty to invite the parties to address it on it after raising it suo motu – See Ogundoyin & ors v. Adeyemi (2001) 7 NSCQR 378 – 379, per Ayoola, J.S.C. (as he was) thus –
“That a party should be given an opportunity, of being heard before a decision is made against him is a fundamental principle of justice that pre-dated our constitution … a person denied such opportunity and who has complained cannot be confronted with a response that would have had nothing worth while to say had he been given an opportunity of a hearing.”
See also Abass v. Solomon (supra) and Alli v. Alesinloye (supra) cited by Mr. Uwawah for the appellants. The second issue is, accordingly, resolved for the appellants.
The appeal has merit on the second issue and is hereby allowed only on the second issue: The appeal is partly allowed. The order of the court below for the Chief Registrar of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State to put the disputed landed property under seal (supra) is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the draft copy of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, IKYEGH, J.C.A. and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion. I too partly allow the appeal and abide by all other consequential orders made in the lead judgment cost inclusive.
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment just delivered learned brother IKYEGH, J.C.A.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is allowed second issue. I also abide by the consequential orders contained including costs.
Appearances
Mr. O. UwawahFor Appellant
AND
Chief J. B. LawsonFor Respondent
