CHIEF N.O. ALOWONLE & ORS v. SULE SOLEBO & ORS
(2012)LCN/5269(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 29th day of March, 2012
CA/L/303M/2004
RATIO
APPEAL: EFFECT OF A GROUND OF APPEAL TO WHICH NO ISSUE IS FORMULATED FROM
It is trite that where no issue is formulated for a ground – that ground is deemed abandoned. AW (NIG.) LTD. V. SUPER MARITIME NIG. LTD (2005) 6 NWLR. Pt. 922, 563; BAKER V. LAGOS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (1992) 8 NWLR. Pt. 262. 641; LABIYI V. ANRETIOLA (1992) 8 NWLR. Pt. 258, 139. Thus, where a ground is abandoned, it is liable to be ignored and discountenanced and to be struck out. E.B. UKIRI V. GECO-PRAKA (NIG) LTD (2010) 16, NWLR. Pt. 1220, 544 at 565. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
APPEAL: WHAT AMOUNTS TO A VAGUE GROUND OF APPEAL
In KALU V. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR. Pt. 987. 66 at 85 Paragraphs a-c, it was held inter alia that it is not the duty of counsel to rectify it or save it, when grounds of appeal are vague, as it offends Order 6 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007.
A vague ground of appeal is one which is couched in a manner which does not give allowance for its being understood, or where what is stated there is so uncertain and robs it of any form of intelligibility. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
APPEAL: PURPOSE OF AN APPEAL
It is trite that an appeal attacks a decision of a Court or tribunal.
It challenges the reason for the conclusions of a Court or tribunal. A Ground of appeal must be fixed and circumscribe a particular issue to establish why a decision is wrong. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
APPEAL: ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURTS TOWARDS INTERFERING WITH THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT
It is trite that it is not the function of the Appellate Courts to substitute their findings with that of the trial Court. It is settled law, and indeed the law is elementary that where the Judgment of the Court of first instance is based on the evidence led at the trial, but the Court fails to make the requisite findings, an Appellate Court can make the requisite findings – MILLER BRICKLEY (NIG) LTD V. MRS FELICA AKURA (1986) 5. NWLR (pt. 44) 752 at 760; CHIEF OYELAKUN BALOGUN & ORS V. OLADOSU AKANJI (1988) 1. NWLR Pt. 70. 301 at 379.
It is not the function of the Appellate Court to disrupt, tamper with the findings of facts made by the trial court as a matter of course. If such finding is supported by credible, cogent and compelling evidence, the Appellate Courts do not interfere. This is because the duty of the trial court who saw and heard the witnesses should not be disturbed. Afterall, the evaluations of evidence adduced, oral and documentary, and the ascription of probative value to such, are the primary functions of a court of trial, which saw, heard and duly assessed the witnesses.
The only occasion, where the evaluation and ascription of probative value of the evidence of the learned trial Judge, at the Court of first instance, can be disturbed, is if the conclusion reach by him is perverse. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
HON. JUSTICE KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HON. JUSTICE JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HON. JUSTICE RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. CHIEF N.O. ALOWONLE
2. J.S. DIXSON
3. ALHAJI SALAU OTEJU
4. S. EDIDI
(for themselves and on behalf of other Members of the Olota Family of Ikorodu) Appellant(s)
AND
1. SULE SOLEBO
2. RAJI IDOWU SOLEBO
3. ALHAJI MUFUTAU SOLEBO
4. MADAM FUNLAYO OROKU (DECEASED)
5. ASIMOWU SOLEBO
6. ALIMOTU SOLEBO
7. YINUSA SOLEBO
8. RALIATU SOLEBO
9. SINOBU SOLEBO
10. MONSURU SOLEBO
(for himself and on behalf of members of the family of Alhaji A.S. Solebo Respondent(s)
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment of Adesanya J, of the Lagos High Court Ikeja Division delivered on the 7th of June 2001, in which he dismissed the Plaintiffs claim and entered Judgment for the Defendants on the Counter-claim-pages 79-81 of the Record of Appeal.
In their 3rd Amended Statement of Claim dated 23rd January, 1991, the plaintiffs (now Appellants) had claimed from the Defendants (now Respondents) for:
(i) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory Right of Occupancy with respect to all that parcel of land situate and being at Oju Ogbe Beach Road, Ikorodu and shown on Plan No. GLS 60A/L/85 thereon adged Blue.
(ii) An Injunction restraining the Defendants and each of them, their servants and agents from committing further trespass on the land in dispute.
(iii) N10, 000.00 damages for trespass committed on the said land.
(iv) The sum of N7, 04.00 against the 10th Defendant as representative of the Estate of Alhaji A.A. Solebo being amount belonging to the Plaintiffs’ family entrusted to the said Alhaji A.S. Solebo deceased, which sum Alhaji A.S. Solebo failed or refused to refund to the Plaintiffs in spite of repeated demands.
The Defendants had Counter-claimed as well as filed an amended Statement of Defence, which is not dated. They counter-claimed thus:-
(i) Declaration that the Solebo family are entitled to the statutory Right of Occupancy on the land in dispute.
(ii) N6, 000.00 damages for acts of trespass.
(iii) An Order of perpetual injunction against the Plaintiffs.
Pages 5-8 of the Record of Appeal.
The plaintiffs had filed a reply and defence to Counter-claim dated 3rd of January 1989.
Herein is a synopsis of the facts of this case as proffered by the Plaintiffs/Appellants?
The land in dispute is one which forms part of a large expanse of land situate and lying at Oju-Ogbe, along Beach Road, Ikorodu Lagos State, which belongs to the Olota family absolutely, under Yoruba Native law and custom, and is more particularly delineated on Plan No. GCS/60A/L/88 filed in the Court below and marked Blue.
The Appellants are members of the Olota family of Ikorodu, and they brought the action at the lower court on behalf of the other members of the Olota family. They were also granted Power of Attorney by the Olota family in respect of the family land dated the 15th day of July 1982. The land in dispute is one of several farmlands which originally belonged to the common ancestor of the parties OLOTA also known as LOSI.
The OLOTA family consists of ten branches namely
Ogidi Branch
Oluwoto Branch
Oye-Eso Branch
Dipe Branch
Edeyingbo Branch
Awofekun Branch
Odubekun Branch
Mudalu Branch
Oduoga Branch
Shofiye Branch
It is the Appellants contention, that any member of the ten branches can become head of Olota family.
Sometime in 1977, the Olota family appointed one Alhaji A.S. Solebo of the Oduoga Branch of the family as head of the Olota family. He died in 1982.
Many years ago, the Olota family decided to set aside a portion of the land in dispute called Oju-Ogbe to be laid out as building plots for individual members of the family who desired to build thereon. They appointed ten representatives, one from each branch of the Olota family, to execute, on behalf of the family, printed documents known as “Deed and Certificate of Free Grant” to allotees who paid the prescribed fee of N220.00 to the head of the family.
This was executed by Chief A.S. Solebo when he became head of the family. In fact the Olota family devised a different type of document to be executed in favour of the allotees, of the building plots on the land in dispute, with four chosen representatives of the Olota family to be signatories on the documents of grant. Chief A.S. Solebo, as head of Olota family, signed the nineteen additional documents of grant, issued to members of the Olota family, many of whom did not belong to the Oduoga Branch – as the Head of the Olota family, whilst the other three signatories were chosen representatives from other branches of the Olota family.
Chief A.S. Solebo had, vide an Advertorial in the Daily Times Newspaper of 28/1/76, claimed that the land in dispute belonged to the OLOTA family.
Suffice to say that the Appellants allege, that A.S. Solebo begun to abuse his office, by deceiving the family and individual allotees, by manipulating the allotment process.
Consequently, he was removed from office as head of the Olota family and replaced by the 1st Plaintiff.
The members of the Solebo family are claiming the whole of Olota family land known as Oju Ogbe as the property of the SOLEBO family.
Simply put, the Respondents claimed in their counter-claim that the land
“was given by OLOTA to and inherited by their ancestor – and has been from time immemorial been used solely by the Defendants’ family to the exclusion of other members of the family”
This is reflected in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Statement of Defence and Counter-claim. (Page 5 of the Record of Appeal).
The Appellants called (from Record) six witness – PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, while the Respondents called DW1, DW2, DW3, DW4 and DW5. Exhibits were tendered, and the learned trial Judge, after appraising the evidence before him, found for the Defendants (now Respondents) and dismissed the plaintiffs’ case. The Defendants (now Respondents) were however given Judgment on their Counter-claim.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants have appealed that decision.
Pursuant to the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on the 15th of June 2001. Although the said Notice of Appeal has on it the appellation “Original signed by O.I. MOROUNDIYA”, there is no “signature” on the signature column in the Notice of Appeal.
On the issue of signature. Although the old rules of Court i.e. the 2007 Rules of Court is mute on the issue of signature, there is the need for the Notice of Appeal to be signed by counsel.
Learned counsel for the respective parties filed their Briefs of Argument.
The Appellants, having obtained an order for extention of time to file his amended Appellants brief filed same on the 31st of July 2007.
I must say that by motion on notice filed on the 12th of July 2004, the plaintiffs/Appellants sought an order directing a departure from the Rules of this Court and that the Appeal be heard on the said bundle of documents, which application was granted on the 12th of May, 2005.
The Respondents, on their part filed their Amended Brief of Argument on the 25th of August 2008, but same was deemed filed on the 20th of January 2009 pursuant to an application to Court which was duly granted.
The Notice of Appeal has two Grounds of Appeal. They can safely be reproduced thus:-
GROUND 7: The learned trial Judge erred in law in giving Judgment in favour of the Defendants when:-
(i) It was common grounds between the parties that the land in dispute originally belonged to the Olota family.
(ii) The Plaintiffs claim on the pleadings and the evidence given is that the land in dispute still belongs to the Olota family.
(iii) The Defendants case was that the land had been given by the original owner, the Olota absolutely to one of the children of Olota through whom the land had descended to the Solebo Family, the Defendants.
(iv) The Defendants failed to prove the alleged gifts to their ancestor by the Olota.
(v) There was overwhelming evidence undisputed by the Defendants that A.S. Solebo son of Bello Solebo (through whom he Defendants now claim) the head of the Olota Family in his life time, openly and repeatedty declared that the land in dispute belonged to the Olota Family and had actively participated in sharing out part of the land in dispute amongst members of the Olota Family generally.
GROUND 2: The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the Plaintiffs had not clearly defined the boundaries of the land which they claimed when:-
ERROR IN LAW
(i) The Plaintiffs filed and produced in evidence a Survey Plan wherein the whole lands they claimed as the original lands of the Olota Family land was clearly demarcated.
(ii) The same plan also showed clearly portions of the family land which had previously been given away by the Olota Family or sold to 3rd parties or compulsorily acquired by Government authorities for public purposes.
(iii) The Plaintiffs clearly demarcated the portions of family land laid out into plots and allocated to members of the family which portions were the immediate cause of action.
I observe that Ground one is rolled up, as the Appellants have not stated what exactly the Ground of Appeal is, but just went on to state what looks like “particulars”. Looked at, from a different perspective, it seems to me that that first ground has no ground of appeal at all, but just particulars. It is neither here nor there. In other words, that Ground is vague, and thus contravenes the provisions of Order 5 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rule, 2007.
Again items i-v prefixed to this Ground No. 1 are argumentative, prolix and utterly narrative. It is a taboo to brief drafting, when a party’s Grounds of Appeal or brief are narrative, prolix and argumentative. It depicts bad drafting skill.
Items i-iv, are issues which should be argued in the brief of argument and not used to garnish a Ground of Appeal.
It is my view that this lacuna makes Ground No. 1 liable to be struck out, and same is hereby struck out.
But assuming I am wrong, it is observed that learned counsel for the Appellants, Chief G.O.K. Ajayi SAN, in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument filed on the 31st of January, 2007, proffered five (5) issues for determination as reflected at pages 10-23 of the Amended Appellants’ Brief of Argument, but regrettably, none of them is said to be distilled from any Ground of Appeal.
This same virus extends to the Respondents’ Brief of Argument settled by Olubunmi Femi-Adeniyi, and deemed filed and served on the 3rd of October, 2007.
At page 7 of the Respondents’ Brief of Argument, they had proffered two issues for determination but none of them was said to be distilled from any of the Grounds of Appeal. Howbeit, in an appeal, it is essentially the Appellants’ brief that is paramount, as he initiates the appeal.
On the 7th of February, 2012, learned counsel for the respective parties adopted their briefs.
Adopting his brief of argument, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that he adopts his brief which was filed on the 11th of April, 2006. He did not say that any of the issues for determination was tied to any of the Grounds of appeal. He submits that the first issue in their brief of argument is their appeal against the decision of the learned trial Judge. That Issues No 2-5 are in respect of the Judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge dated 7th June, 2001.
I.O. Benson, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that he had filed an Amended Brief of Argument on the 21st of August, 2008 but deemed properly filed and served pursuant to an application of 20th of January, 2009.
He submits that issue No. 1 as fronted by the Appellants relates to the Notice of Appeal filed on the 14th of March, 2001. He urges Court to dismiss the Appeal.
It is desirable, indeed pertinent for me to restate precisely the state of the law with regard to brief writing.
It is trite that where no issue is formulated for a ground – that ground is deemed abandoned. AW (NIG.) LTD. V. SUPER MARITIME NIG. LTD (2005) 6 NWLR. Pt. 922, 563; BAKER V. LAGOS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (1992) 8 NWLR. Pt. 262. 641; LABIYI V. ANRETIOLA (1992) 8 NWLR. Pt. 258, 139. Thus, where a ground is abandoned, it is liable to be ignored and discountenanced and to be struck out. E.B. UKIRI V. GECO-PRAKA (NIG) LTD (2010) 16, NWLR. Pt. 1220, 544 at 565.
A Respondents’ brief must confine itself to the Grounds of Appeal and thus the attempt to raise an issue for determination in respondents’ brief that does not arise from Grounds of Appeal is misconceived and therefore ought to be discountenanced. GBO V. NIGERIAN TELEVISION AUTHORITY (1996) 4. NWLR Pt. 447.
In KALU V. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR. Pt. 987. 66 at 85 Paragraphs a-c, it was held inter alia that it is not the duty of counsel to rectify it or save it, when grounds of appeal are vague, as it offends Order 6 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007.
A vague ground of appeal is one which is couched in a manner which does not give allowance for its being understood, or where what is stated there is so uncertain and robs it of any form of intelligibility.
It is trite that an appeal attacks a decision of a Court or tribunal.
It challenges the reason for the conclusions of a Court or tribunal.A Ground of appeal must be fixed and circumscribe a particular issue to establish why a decision is wrong.
Ground No. 2 had been earlier reproduced in this Judgment. It can be safely essentially reproduced thus:
“The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the Plaintiffs had not clearly defined the boundaries of the land which they claimed…”
It is trite that it is not the function of the Appellate Courts to substitute their findings with that of the trial Court. It is settled law, and indeed the law is elementary that where the Judgment of the Court of first instance is based on the evidence led at the trial, but the Court fails to make the requisite findings, an Appellate Court can make the requisite findings – MILLER BRICKLEY (NIG) LTD V. MRS FELICA AKURA (1986) 5. NWLR (pt. 44) 752 at 760; CHIEF OYELAKUN BALOGUN & ORS V. OLADOSU AKANJI (1988) 1. NWLR Pt. 70. 301 at 379.
It is not the function of the Appellate Court to disrupt, tamper with the findings of facts made by the trial court as a matter of course. If such finding is supported by credible, cogent and compelling evidence, the Appellate Courts do not interfere. This is because the duty of the trial court who saw and heard the witnesses should not be disturbed. Afterall, the evaluations of evidence adduced, oral and documentary, and the ascription of probative value to such, are the primary functions of a court of trial, which saw, heard and duly assessed the witnesses.
The only occasion, where the evaluation and ascription of probative value of the evidence of the learned trial Judge, at the Court of first instance, can be disturbed, is if the conclusion reach by him is perverse.Exhibits B, B1, B2, B3 show certificates of grants by Olote family to persons from 1950-1971.
Exhibit “M” is a letter dated 29/9/1944 addressed to Bello Solebo Esq. Itun Domiganran Ward, Ikorodu. I find it pertinent to reproduce same.
IK. N.A 18/Vol 2/27
Council Chamber
Ikorodu
29th September, 1944.
Bello Solebo, Esq.
Itun Domiganran Ward,
Ikorodu.
Sir,
We are directed by the Ikorodu Area Native Authority to thank you for your public spirit in offering the land on which the slaughter slab is built to the Ikorodu Area Native Authority’s use free of rent.
We hove the honour to be your obedient servant
SIGNED SIGNED SIGNED SIGNED
Olota of Ikorodu Oloja of Gbogbo Olisa of Ikorodu Bologun
For the Ikorodu Area Native Authority.
Witness to mark:-
SIGNED
Clerk, Ikorodu Area Council
Exhibit “T” is instructive. It says
AUTHORITY TO ENTER LAND
We, the accredited representative of OLOTA FAMILY OF ITUN DOMIGANRAN in Ikorodu township of Lagos State on behalf of the said OLOTA FAMILY hereby authorizes the Ikorodu District Council to enter our land at OKO SOLEBO on the right hand side of Ebute Road Ikorodu for the purpose of building offices and Staff Quarters for the Council.
This authority affects the area of about TEN acres on which the Council is expected to pay compensation.
SIGNED
1) SIGNED
2) SIGNED
3) SIGNED
4) SIGNED
5) SIGNED
Date: 9th January, 1973,
Witness
SIGNED
9/1/73
Exhibits “M” and “T” support the contention by the Respondents, that the land in dispute belonged to LOSI a.k.a. Olota initially and was handed down to their own father Bello Solebo through his father Oduoga. The Respondents had traced their ancestry to Losi a.k.a. Olota, one of the three sons of Bolu.
In proof of the identity of the land, the Plaintiffs had called PW1, Stephen Olulode Adeaga a Surveyor (pages 11-1-2 of the Record of Appeal), who testified under cross-examination that, he omitted certain features which he described as special. These features according to him ought to have been shown on Exhibit “A” – the Survey Plan. He put thereon Ikorodu Local Government Council, as Ikorodu Divisional Council, which had four corners (but which he did not see). He described a completed building Ibiyemi Hospital, as “under construction”.
The Adverse party i.e. the Respondents however gave the story line of their claim by tracing their root to LOSI a.k.a. OLOTA.
The Respondents counsel had argued that the Appellants failed to, on the principle laid down in IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 S.C. 277, prove their ownership of the land.
The Respondents had pleaded their root of title as reflected at paragraphs 1, 25, 30, 32 to 39 and 42 of their Statement of Defence and Counter-claim. They also led evidence to buttress same. They led evidence, to show that they have been in long possession of the land, by acts of farming thereon, to the effect that the portion of land which they are claiming, has from time immemorial, been referred to as Oko-Ewe Solebo. DW1, DW2, DW3, DW4’s evidence is instructive. This evidence was indeed corroborated by the evidence of PW2, while being examined in Chief; that of PW4 and PW6 under Cross-examination.
It is trite that he who relies on traditional history as his root of title must plead who founded the land, how the land was founded, and the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. EWO V. AWI (2004) 4. MJSC. 119 at pages 129 to 130 paragraphs g-a; AKANBI V. SALAWU (2003) 10. MJSC. 188; ACHIAKPA V. NDUKA (2001) 9. MJSC Pg. 197 at paragraph a.The learned trial Judge, at pages 80-81 of the Record of Appeal observed thus:
“I have considered the evidence before me. It is the duty of the Plaintiffs claiming from the Court a declaration of title to land to show clearly the area of land to which his claim relates even where the location and identity of the land is not in dispute as no declaration of title can be made where the land in dispute is not properly defined and ascertained with precise boundaries.
See OFUME V. NGBEKE 1994 4 NWLR Pt.347 Pg. 748.
Plaintiffs have not submitted or placed before the Court the identities and extent of their land if any.”
He went on
“Has the Plaintiffs proved their title in any of the five ways established in IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA 1976 9-10 SC.
(1) Traditional History and production of document of title. Evidence of Plaintiffs is that the place belongs to Olota family simpliciter.
None of the witnesses for Plaintiffs gave the antecedents of Olota getting into the land.
Even Chief Alowonle admitted he did not know the history.
As for the Defendants, I refer to Exhibits N – N1 – 3.
Exhibit ‘O’ showing the family tree and antecedents of Solebo family. The evidence of defence was not contradicted by the Plaintiffs … The Plaintiffs admitted planting of economic trees on the land, various acts of ownership, that there was a slaughter slab on the land, there is admission that Bello Solebo gave it to Ikorodu Local Government.
I refer also to Exhibit “M” and Exhibit “G” and Exhibit “W”.
All the above convinced this Court about acts of possession by the defence…. A Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case. The burden of proof I hold the Plaintiffs have not discharged. Defendants are entitled to judgment on the Counter-Claim.
Plaintiffs case is accordingly dismissed.”
The learned trial Judge, who had the opportunity of listening to the witnesses, cannot be faulted if he arrived at that decision which he did.
Issues No 2, 3 and 4 can safely be tied to Ground No 2 and carry the same consideration as in issue No 1.
Issue No 5 which is
“Are not the Plaintiffs entitled to damages for trespass and injunction?”
does not flow from the claim in the lower Court, neither was there any issue of a claim for TRESPASS specifically. That issue is therefore otiose.
I dare say therefore that issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 are resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.
The result is that the Appeal is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed with N30, 000.00 costs in favour of the Respondents.
HON. JUSTICE K. B. AKAAHS, J.C.A.: I read in draft the judgment of my learned brother, Pemu JCA wherein the facts were well set out and the issues arising from the appeal were adequately considered.
I agree that the appeal lacks merit and accordingly I dismiss it.
I abide by the order made on costs in the leading judgment.
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.: The parties to this appeal have based their claim on traditional history and various acts of possession. Interestingly, they both plead that one Olota was the founder of the land through whom they claim their title. It behoves the parties in the circumstance to plead the founder of the land, how the land was founded and the particulars of the intervening owners through whom they claim. See Ewo v. Ani (2004) 4 MJSC 119; Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227.
In Akanbi v. Salawu (2003)10 MJSC 118 at 127 paragraphs C-E the Apex Court put it succinctly as follows:
“But to rely on traditional history a party must be familiar with the substance of that history, and must in practical terms do this by pleading the name of the ancestor who founded the land and the names of those after him who the land devolved up to the last successor or successors.
It is also necessary to plead what the successor did specifically to actualize the founding; that is to say, the fact of what he did that constituted the founding. Evidence will have to be led systematically in support of the history without leaving gaps or creating mysterious or embarrassing linkages which are difficult to explain.”
After a careful perusal of the pleadings filed at the lower court and the evidence led, I am satisfied to agree with the Court below that the Respondents succinctly led evidence to prove their root of title which the Appellants failed to do. I agree with the conclusion of my learned brother, pemu, JCA that this appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed. I also dismiss the appeal. I subscribe to costs of N30, 000.00 in favour of the Respondent as contained in the lead judgment.
Appearances
CHIEF G.O.K. AJAYI (SAN) WITH HIM W. A. OGUDE ESQ AND O.O. PHILLIPS ESQ.For Appellant
AND
I.O. BENSON ESQ.For Respondent
