HON. ANTHONY OGUEJIOFOR & ORS V. HYACINTH EJIDIKE & ORS
(2012)LCN/5412(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 25th day of May, 2012
CA/E/387/2008 (Consolidated)
RATIO
EVIDENCE: CONSOLIDATED SUITS: ON WHOM DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE IN CONSOLIDATED SUITS
“Consequently, with consolidated suits remaining separate and retaining their separate identities, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in each of the suits. See SAWUTA VS NGAH (1998) 13 NWLR (PT 500) 39.” Per OSEJI, J.C.A.
“Though not made an issue both at the lower court and in this court, it is apposite for me to emphasize for purposes of posterity, that Relief (c) for declaration of title against the 1st set of Respondents who are also from Okpu Ifite village is not maintainable because a claim for Declaration of title cannot be made against a member of the family in respect of communal land as is shown by evidence led in this case. This is because of the strong presumption that all eligible members of the family are as of right co-owners of such communal or family land. See YOYE VS OLUBODE (1974) 10 SC 209.” Per OSEJI, J.C.A.
ACTION: CONSOLIDATED ACTION: SEPARATE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE GIVEN IN CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS
“It is trite that where actions or suits are consolidated, each retains its separate identity and as such, upon conclusion of a joint proceeding, it is germaine that a separate judgment should be delivered on each of the suits or actions. It will not be proper for a trial judge to determine one suit and ignore the other. See EZIKE VS EGUABA (2008) 13 NWLR (PT 1103) 627: HARUNA VS MODIBBO (2004) 10 NWLR (PT 900) 487.” Per OSEJI, J.C.A.
“I need emphasize here that it is an established and accepted judicial practice to consolidate actions or appeals as in this case where the same issues are raised by the parties on the subject matter of litigation. It gives room for convenience and also saves precious time in arguing them separately. It is therefore an acceptable practice for the courts in consolidated suits not to merely repeat the arguments canvassed by counsel in either of or all the consolidated suits, but where there are distinct issues peculiar to any of the suits, this should be addressed and determined. See HARUNA VS MODIBBO (2004) 16 NWLR (PT 900) 487 at 592 – 594. Where however, the issues are common to all the suits so consolidated, any decision taken in one would effectively determine similar issues in the others in which case it will be superflous to engage in repetition of the same or similar arguments and determination. To my mind, the decision taken in one or similar issues can be incorporated by reference in the other or others. See INEC VS ADMIRAL MURITALA NYAKO & ORS. (Judgment of this court delivered on 15-4-2011 in Appeal NO. CA/A/117/2011).” Per OSEJI, J.C.A.
“The doctrine of ‘standing by’ will apply if the subject matter in the previous case was the same with the one being litigated. See OKUKUJE VS AKWIDO (2001) FWLR (PT 39) 1487 at 1523.” Per OSEJI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADAMU JAURO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. HON. ANTHONY OGUEJIOFOR (Chairman Okpu-Ifite Village Agulu)
2. OKECHUKWU EGBOBE
3. JOSEPH OSELU OKOYE
4. CHIEF OKEKE OGUEJIOFOR (For themselves and on behalf of Okpu-Ifite Village, Agulu) Appellant(s)
AND
RESPONDENTS (1ST SET)
1. HYACINTH EJIDIKE
2. INNOCENT EJIDIKE
3. JOHN OGBATA EZESI (For themselves and on behalf of Ejidike Ogbata Family of Okpu-Ifite Village, Agulu)
RESPONDENTS (2ND SET)
4. CHIDI AKUNYILI
5. CHIKE AKUNYILI
6. BONIFACE AKUNYILI (For themselves and on behalf of Akunyili Family of Nkitaku Village, Agulu) Respondent(s)
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is a consolidated appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Anambra State, Holden at Awka Judicial Division, Awka, Coram. Hon. Justice Umegbolu Nri -Ezedi (Chief Judge) delivered on the 27th November 2007 in Suit Nos A/134/96 and A/135/96 wherein both suits filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed.
The appellants herein had as plaintiffs commenced an action in the High Court of Justice, Awka hereinafter referred to as (the lower court) in Suit No A/134/96 against Hyacinth Ejidike & 2 Ors (for themselves and on behalf of Ejidike Ogbata family of Okpu Ifite village, Agulu) hereafter referred to as (1st set of Respondents). Their claim therein is as follows:-
(a) Declaration that the acts of the defendants in surreptitiously defending “Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite” as their own land in Suit No. SC/107/92. CHUDI AKUNYILI VS IDEMILI EJIDIKE & ORS amounted to a challenge of the plaintiffs’ title over the said “Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite” granted them by the plaintiffs.
(b) Forfeiture of the said portion of Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite granted to the defendants.
(c) Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of a customary right of occupancy over the said portion of Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite granted to the Defendants.
(d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, and/or privies from continuing to occupy the said portion of “Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite” granted to them by the Plaintiffs”.
Subsequently CHIDI AKUNYILI, CHIKE AKUNYILI and BONIFACE AKUNYILI (For themselves and on behalfs of Akunyili Family of Nkitaku Village, Agulu) were on their own application joined in the suit as the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants. They shall hereafter be referred to as the (2nd set of Respondents).
The Appellants also in the same High Court of Justice, Awka Division, Anambra State, commenced another Suit No. A/135/96 against CHIDI AKUNYILI and the 2 Ors (For themselves and on behalf of Akunyili Family of Nkitaku Village, Agulu) hereafter the (Respondents) wherein they claimed as follows as per the further amended statement of claim dated 18/10/2005:-
(a) Declaration that the plaintiffs are not bound by the Supreme Court judgments in Suit No SC/107/92 CHUDI AKUNYILI (For himself and on behalf of Akunyili Family of Nkitaku Agulu) Vs IDEMILI EJIDIKE & ORS (For themselves and on behalf of Ogbata family of Okpu Village Agulu).
(b) Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a customary right of occupancy over the said piece and parcel of land known as and called “Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite” which said land situates at Okpu Ifite Village Agulu, Anambra Local Government Area, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court the annual value which is N40.00.
(c) N50,000,000.00 damages for trespass.
(d) Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from further trespassing on the said land”.
Both Suit Nos. A/134/96 and A/135/96 were subsequently consolidated pursuant to an order of the lower court made on 23/5/2005. Thereafter hearing commenced on 7/6/2005 at the conclusion of which parties filed, exchanged and eventually adopted their written addresses on 24-7-07. The trial Chief Judge in a considered judgment delivered on 21-11-2007 held inter alia as follows:-
“For the reasons given above the plaintiffs cannot succeed in Suit No. A/134/96. It is hereby dismissed.
“For the same reasons also they cannot succeed in Suit No. A/135/96. This is also hereby dismissed”.
In apparent discontentment with the out come of the judgment on the two suits the appellants filed two separate notices of appeal. The Notice of appeal relating to Suit No. A/135/96 was dated and filed on 21/12/07 and it has ten grounds of Appeal, while that relating to Suit No. A/134/96 and contains twelve grounds of appeal and it is also dated and filed on 21-12-07.
The 2nd set of Respondents in CA/E/387/2008 and Respondents in CA/E/388/2008 filed a NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONTEND on each of them. It is dated 14/2/08 and filed on 3/3/08.
Subsequently, in consonance with the relevant Rules of this court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.
For Appeal No. CA/E/387/2008, the appellants brief of argument is dated 3-3-2010 and filed on 8-3-2010 but deemed properly filed by order of this court on 30-9-2010. It was settled by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN.
The Respondents Amended brief of argument settled by U.N. Udechukwu SAN and Chief O.B. Onyali SAN is dated 28/2/2011 and filed on 14-3-2011 but deemed properly filed on 17-3-2011. The Appellants Reply brief is dated 28-3-2011 and filed on the same date.
For Appeal No. CA/E/388/2008, the Appellants brief of Argument was also settled by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN. It is dated 3-3-2010 and filed on 8-3-2010 but deemed properly filed on 30-9-2010 by order of this court.
The 1st set of Respondents did not file any brief of argument.
The 2nd set of Respondents’ amended brief of argument is dated 28-2-2011 and filed on 14-3-2011 but deemed properly filed on 17-3-11 pursuant to an order of this court. It was settled by U.N. Udechukwu SAN, and Chief O.B. Onyali SAN.
The Appellant reply to the 2nd set of Respondents’ brief is dated 28-3-2011 and filed on the same date.
Upon the application of the 2nd set of Respondents vide a motion on notice dated 30/9/10 and filed on 11-10-10 and with no opposition from the other parties, the two appeals were consolidated for hearing on the order of this court made on 25-1-11.
At the hearing of the appeals on 28-2-2012 the relevant parties duly adopted and relied on their respective briefs of arguments and reply in both appeals.
I am inclined to deal first with Appeal No. CA/E/388/2008 bearing in mind that whatever be the outcome will substantially affect Appeal No. CA/E/387/2008.
APPEAL NO. CA/E/388/2008.
In their brief of argument the appellants distilled four issues for determination as follows:-
(1) Whether based on the finding made, the learned trial Chief Judge was justified in his conclusion that the Appellants were caught by the doctrine of Estoppel by standing by. (Grounds 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11).
(2) Whether the learned trial Chief Judge was right in his approach to the evidence adduced before him on matters on which issues were specifically joined. (Grounds 2, 10 and 12).
(3) Whether the learned trial Chief Judge duly evaluated the evidence led before him to justify the finding of collusion between the Appellants and the 1st to 3rd Respondents. (Ground 6).
(4) Whether the judgment of the trial court is sustainable having regard to the fact that one judgment was delivered in the consolidated suit.
For the 2nd set of Respondents 3 issues were raised for determination as follows:-
(i) Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial. The learned trial judge was justified in his conclusion that the land in dispute never belonged to the plaintiffs (Grounds 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10).
(ii) Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the learned trial judge was justified in his conclusion that the plaintiffs were caught by the doctrine of estoppel by standing by. (Grounds 1, 5 and 11).
(iii) Whether the decision of the learned trial judge in both consolidated suits is otherwise impeachable on any ground of law substantive or procedural. (Grounds 2, 3 and 12).
Though couched differently, I observed that the appellants issues 1 to 3 are similar in content with the issues raised by the 2nd set of Respondents while the appellants issue No. 4 stands out but duly addressed in the 2nd set of respondents brief of argument. I will therefore consider this appeal based on the issues raised in the appellants brief of argument.
On issue No. 1, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu of learned Senior counsel for the appellants referred to the finding of the lower court at page 508 – 510 of the record and submitted that the lower court did not consider the pleadings in both Suit No. SC/107/92 and the present suit in order to ascertain what the appellants stood by for. Also referring to Exhibits N, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 tendered in evidence as the testimony of some personalities from Okpu Ifite but was ruled irrelevant by the lower court. He contended that the said exhibits would have disclosed the origin of the personalities and the extent of their participation in the former proceedings.
Learned Senior counsel added that if the three points relied on by the lower court in applying the doctrine of standing by were dispassionately examined, there would have been no tangible reason to so do. He added that the learned Chief Judge ignored the established facts before him and dwelt on conjectures by maintaining that Exhibit ‘L’ was the original of the lease granted by the appellants to the Roman Catholic Church and that it must have come from the appellants who released it to the 1st set of defendants during the trial in the former proceedings. He added that a document tendered in court becomes one kept, of an official record and as such a public document under Section 109 of the evidence Act. Being a public document only a certified true copy can be obtained by a party pursuant to Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act and is the only one admissible as held in ANATOGU VS IWEKA (1995) 8 NWLR (PT 415) 547.
Learned Senior counsel further submitted that Exhibit L. which is the same as the appellants Exhibit C was a document executed by three villages of Umubiala, Amatutu and Okpu Ifite in favour of the catholic church in which case each of them had original copies and it follows that the one which the appellant lost in the civil war cannot be the same one tendered by the 1st defendants in the consolidated suit the former proceedings.
Learned Senior counsel also picked holes with the finding of the lower court that the distinguished personalities who testified in the former proceeding and hails from the appellant village made it imperative that the appellants must have known of the existence of the former proceeding and contended that it was speculative moreso that their evidence in the former proceeding which were Exhibits N, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 were dismissed as unhelpful by the lower court. He added the fact that they testified simpliciter is immaterial in the absence of the contents of their respective testimonies and the lower court cannot after disregarding Exhibits “N to N5” proceed to decide the case based on the existence of the said Exhibits.
Learned Senior counsel also argued that there is no evidence that the appellants as a community authorized the purported distinguished personalities to give evidence for them in the former proceeding neither was there any evidence that they reported back to the community the outcome of their mission. He added that, even if they were from appellants community and indeed gave evidence in the former proceeding on a frolic of their own, it does not follow that the community as whole will know about it. Learned Senior counsel also challenged the reliance of the lower court on the evidence of PW6 to conclude that appellants were aware of the former proceeding. He contended that the pleadings of the 1st set of defendants in the former proceedings which was tendered by the respondents as Exhibit “M” would have been used to ascertain whether the interest they projected was that of the appellants in this case wherein the issue of estoppels by standing by would have applied, but in the said pleadings the 1st set of defendants set up an exclusive claim of ownership, distinct from the right of the appellants.
Learned Senior counsel further submitted that for estoppel by standing by to operate against the appellants. It must be established that the former proceeding was fought on the same interest as the appellants are now presenting in the present case. He added that the basic prerequisites for the application of the doctrine of estoppel must be present, the foremost of which are that the parties must be the same and the subject matter must be the same and the lower court having held that the parties were not the same had obliterated the basis for the application of the doctrine.
Responding on behalf of the 2nd set of Respondents Chief O.B. Onyali SAN of counsel submit in their issue No. 2 that on the proper appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned trial judge was justified in the conclusion which he reached to the effect that the appellants were caught by the doctrine of estoppel by standing by and cannot therefore be entitled to re-litigate the issue of title to the land in dispute with the respondents. This is so, he added, because the appellants themselves pleaded and gave evidence through PW6 who is the 1st Appellant herein that they were in effective possession of the land in dispute in 1971. He further argued that it cannot be true that no one disturbed the appellants in 1972 because DW5 gave positive evidence that in June 1972 Ejidike Ogbata family led by Idemili Ogbata came with 20 masons and 30 labourers and started erecting structures on the land and the 2nd set of Respondents sued the Ejidike Ogbata family. He added that in the circumstance, the lower court was justified in his findings at page 520 of the record with particular reference to the evidence of PW6 who together with other appellants belong to Ogbata family in Okpu Ifite Village, just like the defendants in the 1972 Suit No. AA/64/72 thus making it untenable to say that Okpu Ifite did not know about the adverse claim of Akunyili family which they asserted by destroying the house and suing the defendants immediately in 1972 as shown in the evidence of DW5.
On the contention by the appellants in their brief that the lower court did not consider the pleadings in both the former suit and the present to determine the issues joined in order to ascertain what the appellants stood by for, learned Senior counsel submitted that the parties gave clear evidence that the issue fought in Suit No. AA/64/72 was for title over the land in dispute and the appellants also based their claim in Suit Nos. A/134/96 and A/135/96 on title to the same land and asserted that they were not bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Suit No. AA/64/72.
On the submission of the appellants that the lower court having found that Exhibits N to N5 were inadmissible could not have used same to identify with the witnesses who made them as being from Okpu Ifite, learned Senior counsel submitted that the identity of the said witnesses were established by the independent evidence of witnesses including PW4, PW5, DW1, DW4 and DW6.
Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the appellants in their brief assigned a restrictive scope to the doctrine of standing by. He added that the doctrine is not limited by privity of interest but applies when a person stands by and allows another to litigate over property belonging to the other person standing by. The person standing by knows that he is interested in the subject matter of litigation but choses to take the back seat and let others litigate for his benefit. He cited the following cases in support:- OBODO VS OGBA (1987) 2 NWLR (PT 54) 15 and A.G. FEDERATION VS A.G. ABIA STATE (NO 2) (2002) 6 NWLR (PT 764) 1 at 894.
The response of the appellants in their reply brief in paragraphs 1.04 to 1.16 is noted and will be duly considered.
Estoppel by standing by or the Doctrine of standing by is based on the principle that if a person is content to stand by and watch his battle fought by someone else on a subject matter habouring the same interest, he is to all intents and purposes bound by the result and ought not to be given a chance to reopen the case. See WILSON VS OSHIN (2000) 6 S.C. (PT iii) 1: BELLO VS FAYOSE (1999) 11 NWLR (PT 627) 510: SANTOS VS OKONI INDUSTRIES LTD. (1942) 8 WACA 29 and MAYA VS. OSHUNTOKUN (2001) FWLR (PT 81) 1777.
The doctrine of ‘standing by’ will apply if the subject matter in the previous case was the same with the one being litigated. See OKUKUJE VS AKWIDO (2001) FWLR (PT 39) 1487 at 1523.
In the instant case, the appellants had contended that the subject matter in Suit No. AA/64/72 is not the same with that which they are claiming in Suit No. A/134/96, so it was wrong for the lower court to have invoked the doctrine of standing by against them.
In paragraph 29 of the Amended Statement of claim filed on 18/10/2005, the appellants as plaintiffs in Suit No. A/134/96 claimed as follows:-
(a) A DECLARATION that the acts of the 1st set of defendants in surreptitiously defending a portion of “Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite” as their own land in suit No. AA/64/72 which later went to the Supreme Court as SC/107/92 CHUDI AKUNIYILI VS IDEMILI EJIDIKE & ORS amounted to a challenge or denial of the plaintiffs title over a portion of the said ‘Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite granted to them by the plaintiffs.
(b) Forfeiture of the said portion of Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite by the 1st set of defendants.
(c) A DECLARATION that the entire Okpu Ifite Village are entitled to a grant of a statutory right of occupancy over the said portion of Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite now in dispute.
(d) An ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st set of defendants, their servant, agents and/or privies from continuing to see and treat the said portion of Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite granted to them by the plaintiffs as their personal family land.
From a careful perusal of the above claim, what can be gleaned is that the subject matter of Suit No. A/134/96 is the portion of land litigated upon in Suit No. AA/64/72 which later went up to Supreme Court as Appeal No. SC/107/92.
In other words, it clearly speaks for itself that the portion of Agu Idemili land in dispute between the 1st set and 2nd set of Respondents and was eventually determined by the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/107/92 is the same one being claimed presently by the appellants as reflected in paragraph 29 of their amended statement of claim.
What is more, the appellants witness who testified as the PW5 in the lower court and is from Okpu Ifite gave evidence under cross examination as follows:-
“It is the same land the Akunyili family and Ejidike family fought that we have sued for in this case. When we heard about that case we the Okpu Ifite community sued Ejidike Ogbata family and Akunyili people in this case”. (See page 403 of Record)
The same goes for the PW4 who testified under cross examination as follows:-
“It is the same Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite which was in dispute between Ejidike and Akunyili families that is in dispute in the present case in which I am testifying now” (See page 388 of Record)
Now the learned trial Chief Judge in the judgment made the following findings and conclusion. (See page 513 of the Record).
“Exhibit ‘H’ is the plan used in the 1972 case. The land in dispute is clearly marked Pink. It is noted that Mbala Idemili land is not part of the land in dispute. In the present cases the plaintiffs treated it as part of the land in dispute. The 2nd set of defendants deny that and stated clearly that they do not claim the land since it, and the shrine belong to Agulu town. The superimpositions in the other plans show clearly the land in dispute in the previous case and the present case. PW5 Chief Okpoko stated that the land in dispute between Akunyili Family and Ejidike family is the same land in dispute in the present case. I am satisfied that the land in dispute in the present suits and the previous suits are the same. The inclusion of Mbala Idemili said by the plaintiffs to belong to them is meant to pull wool over the eyes of the court so that the court will hold that the land in the previous case are not the same. The 2nd Defendants do not claim ownership over Mbala Idemili, so even in the present suit, Mbala Idemili is not in dispute”.
I cannot but entirely agree with the findings made above by the lower court as they are in tandem with the pleadings and evidence on record.
An appellate court will only interfere with the findings of fact of a trial court if it is established that, the findings of the trial court are not supported by the totality of evidence on record. See NWAKWO VS FRN (2003) 4 NWLR (PT 809) at 37-38: OGBECHIE VS ONOCHIE (NO 2) 1988 1 NWLR (PT 70) 370: OKONKWO VS OKONKWO (2010) 14 NWLR (PT 1213) 228: OPAYEMI VS THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 5) 101: R. VS OGODO (1961) ALL NLR 700 and BALOGUN VS AYOOLA (1974) 10 SC 111.
In the instant case, the reliefs claimed by the Appellants as plaintiffs in their Amended Statement of claim in the lower court are in tandem with the evidence of the PW4 and PW5 who were their witnesses and also members of Okpu Ifite Village like the appellants.
In the circumstance. It is not in doubt and I so hold that the subject matter in Suit No. AA/64/72 which ended in the Supreme Court as Appeal No. SC/107/92 is the same with the one in the instant case and it follows therefore that it is a proper situation where the Doctrine of standing by will apply. See OKUKUJE VS AKWIDO supra.
On the issue whether the appellant were aware of the existence of Suit No. AA/64/72 CHUDI AKINYILI & ORS VS IDEMILI EJIDIKE & ORS.
The strong contention of the appellants was that they were not aware of the suit in anyway at all and they infact brought this action against the 1st set of Respondents to forfeit the land in dispute on the ground that being their tenants therein they ought to have brought the existence of the said suit to their knowledge. They infact accused the 1st set of Respondent of colluding with the 2nd set of Respondents for trying to overreach the appellants.
The learned trial Chief Judge in the lower court made the following findings on the issue in his judgment:-
“The main plank of the plaintiffs’ case is that Ejidike family failed to inform them of the dispute from 1972 to 1996. They maintained this position inspite of the fact that they look effective possession of the land in 1971, according to the evidence of PW6 and yet they expected the Ejidike family to inform them of what was happening over the land from 1972 to 1996. The plaintiffs contend that the 1st and 2nd sets of defendants fought the case over the land in dispute surreptitiously from the High Court through the Court of Appeal to Supreme Court. I do not understand this. How can a case over land be done surreptitiously in the High Court up to the Supreme Court? The word surreptitiously means “done secretly or quickly in the hope that other people will not notice”. See Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. In that suit the plaintiff won in the High Court, the defendants over turned that in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court restored the judgment of the High Court. So the case was holly (sic) contested. If anything it was not secretly done because personalities from Okpu Ifite Village testified for the defendants in the 1972 case. Moreover, there is no evidence that the previous case was heard in chambers in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court”.
The above finding of the lower court is to my mind, borne out of proper consideration of the evidence before it as shown in the record. It is very clear that the appellants and the 1st set of Respondents (who were defendants in Suit No. AA/64/72) are all from Okpu Ifite Village, Agulu and if the said land in dispute as claimed by the appellants is owned by the entire Okpu Ifite Village, then it stands to reason that the Ejidike family who are presently the 1st set of Respondents are also part owners of the said land. It will therefore be absurd to accept the contention that the said 1st set of Respondents quietly and without the knowledge of the Okpu Ifite Village which they belong to and on whose behalf the appellant brought this action, engaged in a protracted litigation from the High Court to the Supreme Court. It becomes even more incredible to appreciate, bearing in mind that some members of the Okpu Ifite Village (as witnesses) gave evidence for the 1st set of defendants in Suit No. AA/64/72,which eventual outcome the appellants are now challenging its bindingness on them. PW4 did testify that Joseph Oguji and Chief Augustine Oguji are very prominent persons in Okpu Ifite Village at that time and Chief Augustine Oguji was a witness for the defendants in Suit No. AA/64/72. For instance, the PW1, Mr. Gordian Iwe, in his evidence under cross examination confirmed as follows in page 372 of the record:-
“I know Umueze family in Okpu Ifite Village. Okeke Oguejiofor and Ejidike Ogbata are from Umueze family. Ogbata Ezisi is also from Umueze family”.
Earlier in his evidence in chief he testified that:-
“The land in dispute is owned by Okpu Ifite Village. I know that it belongs to them because I share common boundary with them. Standing on my own land the people I see in the land in dispute are people of Okpu-Ifite Village. Some of the people I see on the land in dispute from Okpu Ifite Village are Okeke Oguejiofor, Samuel Egbobe and members of Ejidike Ogbata family. On the occasions I saw them at the land they were planting yams and cassava”.
The Ejidike Ogbata family of Umueze Okpu Ifite are the defendants in Suit No. AA/64/72 but now 1st set of Respondents in this appeal. What is more, the PW6 who is also from Umueze Okpu Ifite also testified thus during trial in the lower court:
“It is true that Ejidike family owns the land in dispute with the Rest of Okpu Ifite people. Ejidike Ogbata family attend Okpu Ifite Village meetings because they are members of Okpu Ifite. They attend our meetings up to today”. (See page 423 of Record).
At page 428 he testified that:-
“In Agulu custom, if a member of a family farms on family land he does not pay tribute to the family”.
From the above plethora of evidence on record regarding the identity of the 1st set of Respondents vis-a-vis the appellants, it is impossible to assert to the contrary, the fact that they are birds of identical plumage and whatever land owned by Okpu Ifite Village will make them genuine beneficiaries and as such whatever struggle to preserve or protect such land is most likely to be made together or at least with the knowledge of everyone in the village. I therefore find it difficult to believe or accept that the 1st set of Respondents as defendants in AA/64/72 fought a land matter from the High Court to the Supreme Court from 1972 to 1996 within the same community where family ties and interactions are sacrosanct to the exclusion and without the slightest knowledge of other members of Okpu Ifite Village. This is absurd as it is strange to comprehend and I will not hesitate to term it a puerile postulation devoid of any iota of acceptance.
Though not made an issue both at the lower court and in this court, it is apposite for me to emphasize for purposes of posterity, that Relief (c) for declaration of title against the 1st set of Respondents who are also from Okpu Ifite village is not maintainable because a claim for Declaration of title cannot be made against a member of the family in respect of communal land as is shown by evidence led in this case. This is because of the strong presumption that all eligible members of the family are as of right co-owners of such communal or family land. See YOYE VS OLUBODE (1974) 10 SC 209.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellants had strongly argued that it was wrong for the lower court after having found that Exhibits “N to N5” (evidence of some witnesses in Suit NO. AA/64/72) were inadmissible to now rely on their presence as witnesses in the said suit to reach his conclusion.
To my mind, there is a strong divide between the admissibility of the said exhibits bearing in mind that they relate to another case entirely and the fact specifically sought to be shown that the witnesses concerned actually testified for one of the parties in the suit. They are facts relevant to this suit and I therefore find no fault with the reliance by the lower court on the fact that some individuals from Okpu Ifite Village having testified as witnesses for the 1st set of Respondents as defendants in Suit No. AA/64/72 raises the cogent inference that the appellants who are members of the same flock were fully aware of the said suit when it was being litigated upon.
The findings and conclusion of the learned trial Chief Judge on the issue is at page 514 of the Record and it reads thus:-
“On the whole I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs know about Suit No. AA/64/72 and let the first set of defendants fight the case for them. They even sent their important personalities to testify in support of the 1st set of defendants. They cannot now relitigate over the same land. They are cut (sic) by the principle of Estoppel by standing by” (sic).
I agree with the above finding and conclusion reached therein and have no reason to fault it. See SHARU VS UMMA (2002) FWLR (PT 105) 766 and AGBABIAKA VS SAIDU (1998) 7 SCNJ 305 and AKINLOYE VS EYIYOLA (1968) NMLR 92.
Accordingly I resolve this issue against the Appellants. The resolution of the above issue I against the appellants no doubt put paid to their case, having been estopped from relitigating over the same subject matter earlier determined by the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/107/92.
Albeit, for what it is worth, I will touch on the other issues raised for determination.
ISSUES No. 2 AND 3
The appellants’ issues 2 and 3 appears interwoven. I will therefore take them together.
It was the stance of the learned Senior counsel to the appellants that the relief sought by the appellants is principally for a determination, that the act of the 1st – 3rd Respondents in claiming exclusive title in AA/64/72 which culminated in the Supreme Court decision in SC/107/92 amounted to a challenge of the appellants overlordship with respect to the land, the subject matter of the case. The reason being that the 1st-3rd Respondents were tenants to the appellants.
He added that the appellants asserted their title over the land and in proof thereof relied on traditional history as well as acts of ownership and possession with respect to contiguous parcels of land to warrant the inference that they were the exclusive owners of the parcel of land of which the disputed portion formed part. He referred to Exhibit ‘C’, D to D19 and Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘E’ tendered in evidence by the appellants as well as their oral evidence in proof of their title including the issues joined with the appellants by the Respondents but which the trial Chief judge did not properly evaluate or consider. He further submitted that a dispassionate view of the judgment of the learned Chief Judge will reveal that justice was not done to the case of the appellants. Learned Senior counsel also urge this court to find that based on the issues joined between the 1st to 3rd Respondents and the appellants there was no basis to find any collusion between them in the presentation of the suit as inferred by the trial Chief Judge, but rather he failed to consider the pleadings and evidence led on the point of collusion.
In response to the issues, learned Senior counsel for the 2nd set of Respondents submitted that the learned trial Chief Judge duly evaluated the evidence adduced before him particularly with regard to threshold issue of whether the plaintiffs have a right to relitigate the matter concerning the land in dispute by claiming that they were not bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Suit No. SC/107/92. He added that the learned trial Chief Judge clearly held that the 1st set of defendants were not tenants to the Plaintiffs as shown in the evidence of the witnesses called by the plaintiffs themselves who were also held not to be the owners of the land in dispute. He added that the learned trial Chief Judge clearly found evidence of collusion between the plaintiffs and the 1st set of defendants from the fact that the 1st set of defendants had claimed the land in dispute as owners in 1972 only to turn around and pretend that they are tenants to the plaintiffs.
Evaluation of evidence is basically the primary function of the trial court. It is only where and when it fails to evaluate such evidence properly or at all that an appellate court can intervene and re-evaluate such evidence. Ordinarily, the appellate court has no business interfering with the finding of the trial court on such evidence. See OGBECHIE VS ONOCHIE (1998) 1 NWLR (PT 470) 370: AROWOLO VS OLOWOOKERE (2011) 18 NWLR PT (1278) 280: OYEWOLE VS AKANDE (2009) 15 NWLR (PT.1163) 119. NNEJI VS CHUKWU (1996) 12 KLR (PT 46) 226 and ADEBAYO VS ADUSEI (2004) 4 NWLR (PT 862) 44.
Simply put, where the trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the available facts, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own views with those of the trial court as this will constitute undue and unwarranted interference with the workings of judicial administration. See SHA VS. KWAN (2000) 5 SC 178; STATE VS. AJIE (2000) 7 SC (PT 1) 24 and FAGBENRO VS AROBADI (2006) 7 NWLR (PT 978) 174.
It is also worthy of note that there is no hard and fast rule in evaluating evidence of witnesses by a trial judge as each judge is free to adopt his own method. See ELEH VS ANYADIKE (1999) 5 NWLR (PT 603) 454.
The approach or methodology to be adopted in the evaluation of evidence is a question of style or choice by the individual judge. There is no hard and fast rule as to the ideal style or method that is required to be followed. All that is necessary is for there to be a clear and convincing showing that there was a proper evaluation of the evidence available on record and determining which side the scale of preference is tilted. See OGBA VS ONWUZO (2005) 6 S.C. (PT 1) 41: ASHAFA FOODS FACTORY LTD VS ALRAINE (NIG) LTD (2002) FWLR (PT 125) 756.
In the instant case, the trial Chief Judge duly addressed the four issues raised for determination in both suits in the course of which he appraised the available evidence as touching on the respective issues. I am therefore inclined to reproduce the portion of the judgment indicative of the fact that there was evaluation of evidence by the learned trial Chief Judge. On issue No. 1 relating to standing by he stated as follows at page 511 of the record:-
“I have considered this issue of relevancy of the evidence of witnesses in the previous case who are now dead and could not therefore testify in the present cases. There I held that their testimonies cannot be used in the present proceedings because the present plaintiffs were not parties in the previous case. But the fact that these important personalities including the traditional Ruler of the town testified in the previous case has to be taken notice of. All of them excepting perhaps, the traditional Ruler are Members of Okpu-Ifite village, the village of the present plaintiffs. Is it reasonable to hold that a village does not know of a case where many important members of that village testified? I do not think so. See Nana Ofori Atta II Vs. Bonsra (1958) AC 45 @ 97.”
On the main foundation of the appellants’ case in the lower court, which is that the 1st set of respondents alleged to be tenants to the appellants, failed to inform them about the land dispute which was fought from 1972 to 1996 but surreptitiously handled it in apparent collusion with the 2nd set of Respondents. The learned trial Chief Judge found as follows at page 513 of the record:-
“The 1st set of Defendants in the present case defended the 1972 case on the basis that they owned the land in dispute. In the present cases they now tell the court, without qualms, that they not only were tenants to the plaintiffs but that indeed, when the previous case was going on they were paying tributes to the plaintiffs. I do not believe them. No reasonable tribunal will believe them. They fought the previous case as owners, and having failed, now help the plaintiffs to re-litigate the cases over the same land. This, they are not allowed to do under our law. This is a clear evidence of collusion, between the plaintiffs and the 1st set of defendants”.
“On the whole, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs knew about Suit No. AA/64/72 and let the 1st set of defendants fight the case for them. They even sent their important personalities to testify in support of the 1st set of defendants. They cannot now re-litigate over the same land. They are caught by the principle of estoppel by standing by. I resolve issue No. 1 in favour of the 2nd set of defendants”.
On the claim for forfeiture, the learned trial judge held as follows:-
“I have held above that the 1st set of defendants were not tenants of the plaintiffs. The land in dispute never belonged to the plaintiffs. The 1st set of defendants fought for ownership of the land in dispute in AA/64/72 and lost. In the present case, they shamelessly state that they are the tenants of the plaintiffs. I have held above when I considered issue No. 1 that the plaintiffs knew about Suit No. AA/64/72 which went up to the Supreme Court. Many of their important persons testified for the defendants in that case. And yet the plaintiffs say that the 1st set of defendants did not inform them of the pendency of AA/64/72. I am satisfied that the land never belonged to the plaintiffs. Issue of forfeiture does not arise in the case at all. The 1st set of Defendants were never their tenants”. (See page 514 of record).
From the above reproduced portions of the judgment of the lower court, I am satisfied that the learned trial Chief Judge engaged in a substantial evaluation of available evidence or record and did justice to it as appropriate and as such this court has no reason to interfere with it in anyway whatsoever. The issues are therefore resolved in against the appellants.
ISSUE No. 4
Whether the judgment of the trial court is sustainable having regard to the fact that one judgment was delivered in the consolidated suit.
Herein, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that Suit No. A/134/96 was instituted by the appellants in order to establish that the act of the 1st set of Respondents in claiming original title in the previous proceedings of AA/64/72 amounted to a forfeiture because they are tenants to the appellants whose title they have challenged by their assertion. But in suit No. A/135/96, the appellants sought a declaration of title to a larger expense of land which encompassed the subject matter of the previous proceeding. He added that the learned trial Chief Judge did not maintain the distinct nature of the two cases as per the differences on the area of land involved. He referred to the case of UME VS IFEDIORA (2001) 8 NWLR (PT 714) 35; UBA VS ETIABA (2008) 6 NWLR (PT 1082) 154 and CHIME VS EZEA (2009) 2 NWLR (PT 1125) 263 on the principle that separate judgment ought to be written in consolidated suits.
He argued that the learned trial chief Judge did not draw a distinction in the evaluation between the pleadings and evidence in the respective suits but treated it as one case. This he says occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.
For the 2nd set of respondents, it was contended that there is nothing wrong with the manner the learned trial judge recorded the judgment in both suits. He cited in support the following authorities: BONI HARLINA VS ADAMU M. MODIBBO (2004) 16 NWLR (PT 900) 487 at 592 – 594; SAWUTA VS NGAH (1998) 13 NWLR (PT 580) 39 at 49. He added that the above cases along with UME VS IFEDIORA (2001) 8 NWLR (PT 714) 35 and UBA VS ETIABA supra, cited by the appellants stated clearly what is required in the hearing and determination of consolidated suits and concluded that the learned trial chief Judge complied with the decided cases which serve as authority in the matter by giving separate decisions and separate judgment in respect of each of Suit No. A/134/96 and A/135/96.
It is trite that where actions or suits are consolidated, each retains its separate identity and as such, upon conclusion of a joint proceeding, it is germaine that a separate judgment should be delivered on each of the suits or actions. It will not be proper for a trial judge to determine one suit and ignore the other. See EZIKE VS EGUABA (2008) 13 NWLR (PT 1103) 627: HARUNA VS MODIBBO (2004) 10 NWLR (PT 900) 487.
Consequently, with consolidated suits remaining separate and retaining their separate identities, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in each of the suits. See SAWUTA VS NGAH (1998) 13 NWLR (PT 500) 39.
In the instant case, a careful perusal of the judgment of the lower court reveals that the learned trial Chief Judge was fully aware that there were two separate cases to be determined, hence he separately referred to Suit Nos. A/134/96 and A/135/96 and gave details of the plaintiff’s claim in each of the two suits. See page 505 of the record. After stating the brief facts of the suits and the issues for determination as raised by the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Chief Judge then formulated his own four issues for determination as follows:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are caught by the principle of estoppel by standing by and estoppel from re-litigating the issue of title over the land in dispute.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to forfeiture of the land in dispute against the 1st set of defendants.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to their reliefs against the two set of defendants.
(4) Are Exhibits G-X relevant in this case.
The learned trial Chief Judge, then proceeded to consider the four issues so identified but with greater emphasis on issue No. 1. He then concluded the judgment as follows:-
“For the reasons given above the plaintiffs cannot succeed in Suit No. A/134/96. It is hereby dismissed.
For the same reasons also they cannot succeed in Suit No. A/135/96. This is also hereby dismissed”.
To my mind this may not be seen as an ideal or elegant approach to the requirement that judgments in consolidated suit ought to be separately delivered, but there is a substantial compliance to the extent that it cannot be strongly argued that there is miscarriage of justice. A simple proof in that regard is made manifest in the fact that the appellants were able to distinguish between Suit Nos. A/134/96 and A/135/96 in preparing their grounds of appeal and distilling and arguing issues emanating there from without much ado.
I need emphasize here that it is an established and accepted judicial practice to consolidate actions or appeals as in this case where the same issues are raised by the parties on the subject matter of litigation.
It gives room for convenience and also saves precious time in arguing them separately. It is therefore an acceptable practice for the courts in consolidated suits not to merely repeat the arguments canvassed by counsel in either of or all the consolidated suits, but where there are distinct issues peculiar to any of the suits, this should be addressed and determined. See HARUNA VS MODIBBO (2004) 16 NWLR (PT 900) 487 at 592 – 594.
Where however, the issues are common to all the suits so consolidated, any decision taken in one would effectively determine similar issues in the others in which case it will be superflous to engage in repetition of the same or similar arguments and determination. To my mind, the decision taken in one or similar issues can be incorporated by reference in the other or others. See INEC VS ADMIRAL MURITALA NYAKO & ORS. (Judgment of this court delivered on 15-4-2011 in Appeal NO. CA/A/117/2011). In the instant case, I find that the issues in both suits are virtually in tandem with one another no matter how much the appellants tried to decorate them with coats of many colours.
In the circumstance I find that the learned trial Chief Judge substantially complied with the requirement of delivering separate judgments in the two consolidated suits. Issue No. 4 is therefore resolved against the appellants.
As earlier indicated resolution of issue No. 1 against the appellants automatically knocks the lid off their case having been found to be guilty of standing by and thus estopped from relitigating on Suit No. AA/64/72 or SC/107/96. In the final analysis I hold that his appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower court delivered on 21-11-2007 is hereby affirmed.
The sum of N30.000 is awarded as costs in favour of the 2nd set of Respondents.
APPEAL NO. CA/E/387/2008
At the introductory part of this judgment I stated the fact and circumstances that led to this appeal and also identified the briefs of argument and reply filed by the parties to the appeal which was duly adopted at the hearing of the appeal on 28/2/2012.
In the appellants brief of argument dated 3-3-2010 and filed on 8-3-2010 but deemed properly filed on 30-9-2010 the following five issues were formulated for determination:-
(1) Whether based on the finding made, the learned trial Chief Judge was justified in his conclusion that the appellants were caught by the doctrine of estoppel by standing by. (Grounds 2, 3, 6,7 and 9).
(2) Whether the learned trial Chief Judge duly evaluated the evidence led before him in finding that the land in dispute in the former suit was the same as the disputed land in the present suits. (Ground 5).
(3) Whether the learned trial Chief Judge was right in his approach to the evidence adduced before him on matters on which issues were specifically joined. (Ground 8 and 10).
(4) Whether the learned trial Chief Judge duly evaluated the evidence led before him to justify the finding of collusion between the appellants and the 1st to 3rd Respondents. (Ground 6).
(5) Whether the judgment of the trial court is sustainable having regard to the fact that one judgment was delivered in the consolidated suit. (Ground 1).
For the respondents, the following three issues were distilled for determination:-
(1) Whether having regard to pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the learned trial judge was justified in his conclusion that the land in dispute never belonged to the appellants. (Grounds 5, 8, 9 and 10).
(2) Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the learned trial judge was justified in his conclusion that the Appellants were caught by the doctrine of estoppels by standing by. (Grounds 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7).
(3) Whether the decision of the learned trial judge in both consolidated suits is otherwise impeachable on the ground of law, substantive or procedural, (ground 1).
A careful perusal and study of the issues raised for determination by the parties vis-a-vis the relevant grounds of appeal and their submissions in support thereof discloses that they are virtually on all fours with Appeal No. CA/E/388/2008 particularly with regard to the pleadings and evidence adduced in the lower court. The only difference being the issue of forfeiture of the land in dispute as claimed by the appellants and already dealt with in CA/E/388/2008, and that of the size of the land in dispute as contended in this Appeal No. CA/E/387/2008.
On this issue of the difference in the size of land it will be necessary to revisit the appellants’ claim as contained in their further amended statement of claim dated 18/10/05, it reads:-
(a) A Declaration that the plaintiffs are not bound by the Supreme Court judgment in Suit No. SC/107/92. CHUDI AKUNYILI (for and on behalf of Akunyili family of Ntikaku Agulu) Vs IDEMILI EJIDIKE & ORS (for themselves and on behalf of Ogbatas family of Okpu Ifite village Agulu).
(b) A Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory right of occupancy over the said piece or parcel of land known as and variously called “Agu Idemili or Mbala Idemili or “Idemili land” Okpu Ifite village, Agulu, Anaocha Local government Area, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court, the annual value of which is N40.00.
(c) N50,000,000.00 damages for trespass.
(d) Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants their servants, agents and/or privies from further trespassing on the said land. (See page 208 to 209 record).
Now relief (b) of the claim above show that the appellant seeks a declaration of title with respect to a piece of land called “AGU IDEMILI or “MBALA IDEMILI” or “IDEMILI LAND” Okpu Ifite village, Agulu. In paragraph 3 of their further amended statement of claim dated 18/10/05 they pleaded as follows:-
“The plaintiffs are from time immemorial the owners, occupiers and in exclusive possession of the vast parcel of land known as and variously called “Mbala Idemili”, “Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite, or simply “Idemili lands”, which said land situates at Okpu Ifete village, Agulu, Anaocha Local Government Area of Anambra State, within Awka capital territory and also within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and is more particularly described, delineated and verged green in plan No. CA/A/88/97 filed with the statement of claim. The plaintiffs shall at the trial rely on the said plan the features shown therein and on evidence of boundarymen.”
The Respondents on the other hand in paragraph 4e of their 4th further amended statement of defence dated 10-6-2006 pleaded as follows:-
“The defendants had to the knowledge of the plaintiffs disputed the ownership of the land in dispute with the Ejidike family of Okpu Ifite village Agulu for 24 long years from 1972 to 1996 in Suit No. (a) AA/64/72 in the High Court, Awka, (b) CA/E/173/90 in the Court of Appeal, Enugu and (c) SC/107/92 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In those cases, the defendants used plan No. FCO/DII/76, which is the very plan they are using in the present case. In the said plan, Mbala Idemili is well shown and has never been in dispute between the defendants and anybody, and the land in dispute is therein delineated. Survey plan Nos. FCO/AN/D2/2005 and FCO/AN/D1/2005 showing the superimposition on the plaintiffs plan Nos. CA/(A)/88/97 and CA/(A)/LD001/98 will be relied upon at the trial”.
It should be noted that the respondents made it clear in their pleadings that “MBALA IDEMILI land is not in dispute and they do not lay claim to it. Witnesses called by the appellants also in their evidence testified that Mbala Idemili land was not part of the land litigated upon in 1972. In this regard PW4 who is the 2nd Appellant now gave evidence at the trial as follows:-
“It is the same Agu Idemili Okpu Ifite which was in dispute between Ejidike and Akunyili families that is in dispute in the present case in which I am testifying now”.
PW5 also testified as follows:-
“It is the same land Akunyili family and Ejidike Ogbata fought that we have sued for in this case. When we heard about that case, we the Okpu Ifite community sued Ejidike Ogbata family and Akunyili family in this case”.
It is therefore very glaring that it is the same portion of land that is in dispute in both Suit Nos. CA/134/96 and A/135/96, this has been established by the evidence of witnesses called by the appellants themselves no matter how much it is intended to disguise the reality of the situation.
I cannot therefore but agree with the learned trial Chief Judge where he concluded thus in his judgment at page 251 of the record thus:-
“The inclusion of Mbala Idemili said by the plaintiffs to belong to them is meant to pull wool over the eyes of the court so that the court will hold that the land in the present suits and the land in dispute in the previous case are not the same. The 2nd defendants do not claim ownership over Mbala Idemili. So even in the present Suit Mbala Idemili is not in dispute”.
That was a proper finding of fact by the learned trial Chief Judge and I endorse it completely as the true state of things in the suit.
Having thus cleared this issue of whether or not the land in dispute in the previous and present suits are the same. I hold that based on my analysis and conclusions reached on all the issues raised in Appeal No. CA/E/388/2008 I also resolve all the issues raised in this appeal against the appellants.
Consequently I hold that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower court delivered on 21-11-2007 is hereby affirmed.
The sum of N20,000 is awarded as costs in favour of the Respondents.
AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the judgments of my learned brother, Samuel C. Oseji, JCA; in these appeals. I am in total agreement with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusions and have nothing to add
I adopt the judgments as mine. Accordingly, I find each appeal to be lacking in merit and dismiss same. The judgments of the lower court delivered on 21/11/2007, appealed against in each appeal, is affirmed.
I abide by the orders in relation to costs in each appeal, as contained in the lead judgments.
ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgments of my learned brother, S.C. Oseji JCA in the consolidated appeals, just delivered.
I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions reached in the judgments, which I also adopt as mine. The two appeals are lacking in merit and are hereby dismissed.
Consequently, an order is hereby made affirming the judgments of the lower court delivered on 21st November, 2007 in respect of the two cases.
I abide by all consequential orders made in the judgments, including that of costs.
Appearances
Ben Osaka, with T. U. Oguji, E. Nzegwu, N. L. Owoh Miss for appellants in both appealFor Appellant
AND
O.B. Onyali SAN with C. Aniemena for 2nd set of Respondents in the CA/388 and Respondents in 387.
K. J. Bielu for 1st set of Respondents in CA/388For Respondent
