F.G. ONYENWE MOTORS LTD v. FBN (MERCHANT BANKERS) LTD (2013)

F.G. ONYENWE MOTORS LTD v. FBN (MERCHANT BANKERS) LTD

(2013)LCN/6392(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 10th day of July, 2013

CA/E/458/2008

JUSTICES

MOJBED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

F.G. ONYENWE MOTORS LTD – Appellant(s)

AND

FBN (MERCHANT BANKERS) LTD – Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST ARISE FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

It is glaring that the matters raised by issue No 1 of the appellants brief are not contained in any of the above mentioned grounds of appeal. Therefore the said issue is not derived from any of these grounds of appeal. As it is non of the issues for determination raised by the appellant derive from or touch on any of these grounds of appeal. The legal consequence of this situation is that the said grounds of appeal shall be treated as abandoned by the appellant. It is now trite law that any ground of appeal from which no issue has been formulated is deemed abandoned. Such abandoned ground of appeal shall be struck out. See TERIBA v. ADEYEMO (2010) 13 NWLR (pt. 1211) 242 S.C., ONAFADE v. OLAYIWOLA (1990) SCNJ 10 and IYOHO v. EFFIONG (2007) 4 S.C. (pt 111) 90. PER AGIM, J.C.A.

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On the 23rd December, 2005, the appellant herein, as plaintiff by a writ of summons commenced suit 0/670/05 in the High Court of Anambra State, in the Onitsha Judicial Division claiming for:-

1. The declaration that the Defendant as Bankers to the plaintiff, can only charge interest, and/or other Bank charges as agreed by the parties and/or as regulated and approved by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

2. A declaration that all interest and other Bank charges not earlier agreed to by the parties and/or not approved or contrary to the guide line of the Central Bank of Nigeria is wrongful, illegal and of no effect whatsoever.

3. An order of court directing the Defendant to reconcile the plaintiffs account, and reverse all debit entries which are unauthorized, and/or contrary to the guideline and/or directives of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

4. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, by itself or through its Staff, Agents and Privies from taking any step towards, foreclosure in respect of any legal mortgage and/or security that was provided by the Plaintiff in respect of this facility and/or doing any other thing or taking any other step that will disturb or hinder the business of the Plaintiff, pending the reversal of all unauthorized charges and/or interests in the Plaintiff’s account with the Defendant.

5. The sum of N20,000.000.00 (Twenty million Naira) for breach of contract.

The respondent herein, as defendant in that Suit, in response to the statement of claim of the plaintiff, filed a statement of defence and counter-claim for:-

(a) The sum of N39,417,132.18k (Thirty-nine Million, Four Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-two Naira, Eighteen kobo) being the debt owing to the Defendant by the Plaintiff.

(b) 17% interest per annum on the said money from 30/12/2005 until judgment delivered.

The plaintiff filed a defence to the said counter-claim. The plaintiff led evidence in support of his case through PW1 and PW2 and documentary exhibits P1 to P9. The defendant led evidence in defence and in support of its counter-claim through DW1 and documentary exhibits D1 to D10.

Following the addresses of counsel to both sides, the trial court on the 24th September, 2008 rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and granting the defendants counter-claim.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the plaintiff, on the 17th of October 2008, commenced this appeal No. CA/E/458/2008 by filing a notice of appeal containing 8 grounds. Both parties to this appeal have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs of argument. The appellant in its brief raised the following issues for determination –

1. Whether the Trial court acted in line with fair hearing when the court failed to consider or construe the contents of Sky Inspection Nigeria Limited Report which was the Review and Reconciliation of F.G. Onyenwe Motors Nigeria Limited Account dated 15/8/2005 (Exhibit P3) before the court held that the contents of the said document could not be relied upon to prove that interest was charged by the Respondent against the Appellant contrary to the Central Bank approved prevailing rates of interest during the period under review. (See grounds 34, 38, 3C, 3D and 3(G) of the Notice and Grounds of appeal).

2. Whether the Trial court acted in line with fair hearing when the court entered judgment for the Respondent against the Appellant in the counter-claim without evaluating the pleadings and evidence led in support of the counter-claim. (Grounds 3E, 3F and 3H).

The respondent in its brief raised the following issues for determination:-

1. “Whether the Court below was right when it dismissed the claim of the Plaintiff/Appellant.

2. Whether the Court below was right when it granted the counter-claim of the Respondent.”

I prefer to determine this appeal on the basis of the issues raised by the appellant.

Let me start with issue No. 1. The appellant indicated under its issue No. 1 thus – “(See grounds 3A, 38, 3C, 3D and 3G of the Notice and grounds of appeal)” I understand this to mean that the said issue is derived from grounds 3A, 38, 3C, 3D and 3G of the notice of appeal. I have carefully read those grounds and issue No 1, I cannot see any relationship between grounds 3B, 3C, 3D and 3G and the appellants issue No. 1. The matters raised by issue No. 1 of the appellant’s brief are clearly different from the matters raised by each of the said ground of appeal.

The matters arising from issue No. 1 of the appellant’s brief are:

(i) the trial court failed to consider or construe the contents of exhibit P3.

(ii) the court held that the contents of the said documents could not be relied upon to prove that interest was charged by the Respondent against the appellant contrary to the Central Bank approved prevailing rates of interest during the period under review.

Ground 38 complains that “the court did not consider the claim of the Appellant that there were excess charges in the appellant’s account, Appellant’s claim that the Appellant was not indebted to respondent before holding that exhibit P2 shows that as at the end of the 28th February 2003, the plaintiffs account recorded a debit balance of N56,938,253.16 and the plaintiff did not complain of any irregularity.

Ground 3C complains that:-

“The trial court without evaluating the evidence of the appellant on excess charges the Respondent charged on the Appellant’s Account with the Respondent held thus:-

“On the basis of the evidence before me, the 1st complaint of the plaintiff with respect thereof was through the instrumentality of exhibits P3 and P4. As shown at page 6 of exhibit P3, the major grouse of the plaintiff is that “the branch worked interest on the principal facility upfront at the agreed rate of 28% per annum for two years. The resultant interest is added to the principal lease and factored into monthly rentals. This monthly rental is discounted into an unfounded current account to create a new overdraft which attracts another interest on a compounding basis at a new lending rate different from the agreed rate.” It seems to me, from the above statements, which were lifted from exhibit P3, that the plaintiff understood the defendant to have wrongly converted the lease finance facility into an overdraft facility with its attendant consequences. Unfortunately, however I find if difficult to agree.

Rather, it seems to me that, in accordance with the terms of the lease finance transaction, it definitely expired on the 28th day of February 2003. By the end of the above-mentioned date the plaintiff was expected to have concluded payment, unless the parties had agreed otherwise. Having failed to do so, however, the defendant then started charging interest on the said outstanding balance. During the relevant period, the defendant charged varying rates of interest. The complaint of the plaintiff is to the effect that the rates of interest charged by the defendant offended the Central Bank’s regulated rates of interests. To drive home the points, the plaintiff tendered in evidence exhibit P9.” (Underlining supplied).

Ground 3D complains that:-

“The Trial court misplaced the onus of proof when the court held that the Appellant on the authority of First Bank of Nigeria PLC v. Uwada (2003) 2 NWLR (part 805) 485 at 504 did not prove to the satisfaction of Court

“… What the Central bank approved prevailing rates of interest were during the period under consideration; compare it with the rates of interest actually charged, and then work out the amount of the excess. It would be very difficult for the plaintiff to succeed in doing so except with the assistance of an accountant.”

Ground 3G complains that the Learned trial judge contrary to:

“The Learned Trial Judge contrary to fair hearing raised the issue that before the Appellant would succeed improving that excessive interests were charged in its account with the Respondent, the Appellant would through the assistance of an accountant proof to the satisfaction of the court what the Central Bank approved prevailing rates of interests were during the period under consideration; compare it with the rates of interests actually charged, and them work out the amount of the excess.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

i. The Respondent did not either in its pleadings or evidence led in court in the course of trial raises the issue that the review and reconciliation of F. G. Onyenwe Motors Nigeria Limited Account No. 001/03/010317 with FBN (Merchant Bankers) Ltd. Onitsha Branch dated the 15th of August 2005 and tendered in the lower court as Exhibit P3 was not done by accountants.

ii. The qualification of the persons who prepared Exhibit P3 was not made an issue at the Trial court in the course of trial; the trial court acted contrary to fair hearing to raise the issue of the fact that the maker of Exhibit P3 was not an accountant only in the judgment of the trial court without in any manner given the Appellant to opportunity to react to it.

iii. A.P.C Nwude testified for the Appellant as PW2 and tendered Exhibit P3; the evidence of A.P.C Nwude was not in any manner challenged under cross-examination.

iv. The Respondent in the course of trial conceded to Exhibit P3 and that concession amounted to an admission; matters are admitted in law need no further proof.

v. The finding of the court in relation to the fact that the evidence on interest charges ought to be given by an accountant sequel to particulars i-iv above was made without jurisdiction and said wrong finding caused the trial court not to give probative value to Exhibit P3 which was not in any manner controverted by the Respondent.

vi. Exhibit P3 which was admitted by the Respondent was no longer an issue to be reviewed by the court at the court’s instance.”

Let me now deal with the merit of issue No. 1 of the appellant’s brief. I have already highlighted above the complains raised by issue No. 1 against the judgment of the trial court. One of the complains therein is that the judgment of the trial court did not consider or construe exhibit P3. In Ground 3A of the notice of appeal the appellant had asserted that the trial court did not consider exhibit P3.

The argument of issue No. 1 in the appellant’s brief argument, do not support its contention in ground 34 and issue No. 1 that the trial court did not consider and construe exhibit P3.

Learned counsel for the appellant did not argue that PW3 was not considered or construed by the trial court. Rather he argued challenging the way the trial court considered used and construed exhibit P3. He argued that the trial court refused to give probative value and should have construed it in favour of the appellant.

In paragraph 4.15 page 16 of the appellant’s brief it is argued that the finding of the trial court that exhibit P3 was completely silent on the specific Central Bank prevailing rates of interest during the period under consideration is at variance with the contents of exhibit P3. At paragraph 4.17 pages 16-17 of the appellant’s brief it is argued that “the Honourable Court with respect made a case for the respondent when the court held that the court had difficulty how the plaintiff (Appellant) arrived at excess interest, which was recorded in exhibit P3. See page 362 of the record of appeal. It is the law that exhibit P3 ought to speak for itself.” In paragraph 4.22 page 19 of the appellant’s brief, it is argued that –

“The trial court who stated in its judgment (see page 362 of the record of appeal) that the court had difficulty to appreciate how the Appellant arrived at excess interest which was stated in Appendix D in exhibit P3 ought not to rely on the same exhibit P3 to enter judgment in the counter claim filed by the plaintiff in the sum of N39,417,132.18k (Thirty-nine Million, four Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-two Naira, Eighteen kobo).”

In paragraph 4.23 page 10 of the same brief it is argued that “the trial court ought not to construe exhibit P3 in favour of the Appellant and had difficulty in giving construction to the same document when it came to evaluate the case of the appellant.

In paragraph 4.28 page 22 of the appellant’s brief, it is argued that the judgment is contrary to fair hearing because it did not dispassionately consider all the materials including exhibit P3. It is implicit in this submission that exhibit 3 and other materials were considered but not dispassionately. In paragraph 4.24 page 19 of the appellant’s brief it is also argued that – “It is submitted that the trial court did not in any manner evaluate the case of the Appellant and did not interpret exhibit P3 which was Sky Line Inspection of Nigeria Report. The trial court clearly held that the report was silent on the specific Central Bank prevailing rate of interest during the period under consideration. (See page 362-363 of the record of appeal). The above finding was not correct considering the contents of exhibit P3 reproduced in paragraphs 4.16 above.”

All the foregoing arguments learned counsel for the appellant clearly complain about how the trial court considered, construed and used exhibit P3 and not that it did not consider and construe same.

Arguments in an appeal before this court must be based on the issues raised for determination in the appeal. Therefore the arguments must proceed on the basis of the said issues raised for determination in the appeal. The argument of an issue must support the complain in the issue and justify it. Where as in this case the argument of an issue is contrary to or inconsistent with an assertion or contention on which the issue is founded, then the issue has failed. The issue contends or asserts that the exhibit P3 was not considered or construed by the trial court. The argument rather contends that the trial court was wrong in the way it considered used and construed exhibit P3. Clearly the argument presupposes that exhibit P3 was considered and construed but that it was not properly considered and construed.

In any case it is glaring that the trial court in its judgment considered used and construed exhibit P3. This is clear from the following portions of the judgment.

1. “On the basis of the evidence before me, the 1st complaint of the plaintiff with respect thereof was through the instrumentality of exhibits P3 and P4. As shown at page 6 of exhibit P3, the major grouse of the plaintiff is that “the branch worked interest on the principal facility upfront at the agreed rate of 28% per annum for two years. The resultant interest is added to the principal lease and factored into monthly rentals. This monthly rental is discounted into unfunded current account to create a new overdraft which attracts another interest on a compounding basis at a new lending rate different from the agreed rate.” It seems to me, from the above statement, which were lifted from exhibit P3, that the plaintiff understood the defendant wrongly converted the lease finance facility into an overdraft facility with its attendant consequences. Unfortunately, however, I find it difficult to agree.”

2. “Rather it seems to me that, in accordance with the terms of the lease finance transaction, it definitely expired on the 28th day of February 2003. By the end of the above mentioned date, the plaintiff was expected to have concluded payments, unless the parties had agreed otherwise. Having failed to do so, however, the defendant then started charging interests on the said outstanding balance. During the relevant period, the defendant charged varying rates of interests. The complaint of the plaintiff is to the effect that the rates of interests charged by the defendant offended the Central Bank’s regulated rates of interests. To drive home the point the plaintiff rendered in evidence exhibit P9.”

3. “It follows, therefore, that for the plaintiff to succeed in her claim that excessive interests were charged against her, she must establish to the satisfaction of the court, that the offending rates of interests and penalties were, indeed, in excess of the prevailing Central Bank rates of interests. The only way she can succeed in doing so, is by showing to the satisfaction of the court, what the Central Bank approved prevailing rates of interests actually charged, and then work out the amount of the excess. It would be very difficult for the plaintiff to succeed in doing so except with the assistance of an accountant. See First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Uyada (2003) NWLR (pt 805) at 504. It seems to me that it was an attempt to put with the above stated challenge that the plaintiff prepared, and tendered evidence exhibit P3, particularly pages 15 to 21 thereof. Unfortunately, however, in my humble opinion, that exhibit failed far short of the expectations. The document under reference has a column referred to “excess interest”. I took a lot of pains to study the table (Appendix D to exhibit P3). It was very difficult for me to appreciate how the plaintiff arrived at the amount of the excess interests which recorded in the document under reference. My difficulty stemmed from the fact that the document in question remained completely silent on the specific Central Bank prevailing rates of interest during the period under consideration. This in my humble opinion, is the heart of the matter. It was what the exhibit set out to do, to work out, to the satisfaction of the court, the amount of the excess. This, however, it failed to achieve.”

It is clear from these portions of the judgment of the trial court that exhibit P3 was considered, used and construed by the trial court. There was therefore no basis for the assertion in issue No. 1 that the trial court did not consider and construe exhibit P3.

It is also asserted in issue No. 1 of the appellant’s brief that the trial court held that the content of exhibit P3 could not be relied upon to prove that interest was charged by the respondent against the appellant contrary to the Central Bank approved prevailing rates of interest at the relevant time.

Let me straight away point out that there is no part of the judgment of the trial court that held that the contents of the document could not be relied on to prove that the interest charges were contrary to Central Bank approved prevailing rate. This is clearly a suggestio falsi. A party cannot read into a judgment what is not there and proceed to rely on same to argue an appeal against the judgment. Such an argument cannot stand. What the trial court said as is clear from the portions of the judgment reproduced above, is that exhibit P4 was intended by the appellant to prove that excessive and arbitrary interest charges were made against the appellant and that it failed to achieve that purpose. The trial court did not hold that exhibit P3 cannot be relied on to prove excessive interest charges. In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the trial court acted in line with fair hearing in its judgment.

It is worthy of note that the argument of the appellant under issue No. 1 exceeded the ambit of the said issue. A greater part of the arguments dealt with matters that were not raised by the said issue. The arguments in paragraphs 4.03 to 4.14 at pages 12-16, paragraphs 4.17 to 4.21 at pages 16-19, paragraphs 4.25 to 4.27 at pages 20-22 of the appellant’s brief do not touch on issue No. 1 of the appellant’s brief. Arguments in an appeal before this court must proceed on the basis of the issues raised for determination in the appeal. Where arguments are made under a particular issue, the argument of that issue must deal only with the subject matter of the said issue. A party cannot validly make arguments that are not related to the subject matter of the issue under which the argument is being made. Such arguments cannot validly stand on the basis of that issue.

In the paragraphs and pages of the appellant’s brief referred to above, the appellant argued that –

(i) paragraph 14 of the written deposition of PW1 and paragraphs 7 and 8 of the written deposition of PW2 support paragraph 8 and 9 of the appellant’s amended statement of claim that excess interest charges were made.

(ii) PW1 and PW2 were not cross-examined in respect of exhibit P3.

(iii) The trial court “did not at all consider the evidence of DW1 under cross-examination especially where he conceded to exhibit P3.”

(iv) The trial court on the strength of the respondent’s concession to exhibit P3 ought not have given judgment.

(v) No further proof was required of exhibit P3 because the respondent conceded to it through its solutes DW1.

(vi) The finding of the trial court that exhibit P3 was silent on the specific Central Bank rates of interest is at variance with the contents of exhibit P3.

(vii) The trial court made a case for the respondent when it held that it had difficulty concerning how the appellant arrived at the excess interest charges record in exhibit P3.

(viii) The respondent did not challenge the content of exhibit P3.

(ix) PW2 was not cross-examined concerning paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of his written deposition.

(x) It is the law that in proof of special damages, unchallenged evidence can constitute sufficient proof of special damages.

(xi) Since the respondent did not challenge the evidence led in respect of exhibit P3, the said evidence ought to have been relied upon by the trial court to enter judgment for the appellant.

(xii) The account of the appellant with the respondent ought to have a credit balance and not a debit balance but not for the excessive and arbitrary charges.

(xiii) The trial court completely failed to evaluate the evidence led by both parties at the trial before it entered judgment for the respondent.

(xiv) The trial proceedings were in breach of fair hearing as it did not take into consideration the case put forward by the appellant.

Non of these arguments address the issue that there was no fair hearing because the trial court did not consider or construe the contents of exhibit P3 before it held that the contents of the said document could not be relied upon to prove excess interest charges.

It is also noteworthy that these arguments do not touch on or address the remaining issue for determination raised by the appellant. The arguments are therefore not based on any of the issues raised by the appellant for the determination of this appeal. Since the arguments are not in respect of the issues raised for the determination of this appeal, this court will not countenance them. They are hereby struck out.

In the light of the foregoing issue No. 1 is resolved in favour of the respondent.

Let me now consider the issue of “whether the trial court acted in line with fair hearing when the court entered judgment for the respondent against the appellant in the counter-claim without evaluating the pleadings and evidence led in support of the counter-claim.

The trial court in its judgment granting the counter-claim relied on the same reasons it gave for dismissing the plaintiffs claim. The court understood the case of both sides as hinging on the resolution of the Central issue of whether there were excess and arbitrary interest charges on the loan given to the appellant by the respondent. This is clear from the Statement of the Learned Trial Judge thus –

“I have considered, carefully, the pleadings and evidence which were presented before me by the parties. I have also considered, with rapt attention, the respective submissions of counsel for the parties in contesting this suit. It is only a question of whether or not the defendant subjected the plaintiff to excessive and unauthorized interests and charges in their computation of the plaintiff s account. The facts of the case appear to me, to be simple and straight-forward.”

After directing itself as seen above, it proceeded to find as a fact that the undisputed fact was that the appellant was to complete payment of the loan under the lease finance transaction on or before the 28th February 2003.

After this finding, it proceeded to find out if the appellant had completed payment of the debt by 28th February 2003. It relied on exhibit P2, the statement of the appellant’s account with the respondent to find as a fact that as at 28th February 2003, the statement of account recorded a debt balance of the sum of N56,938,253.16 and that the appellant did not then complain of any irregularity.

The trial court then proceeded to examine the complains of the appellant. According to the trial court the 1st complain of the appellant as stated in page 6 of exhibit P3 is that-

“the branch worked interest on the principal facility upfront at the agreed rate of 28% per annum for two years. The resultant interest is added to the principal lease and factored into monthly rentals. This monthly rental is discounted into unfunded current account to create a new overdraft which attracts another interest on a compounding basis at a new lending rate different from the agreed rate.”

The trial court dealt with this complain by holding thus –

“It seems to me, from the above statements which were lifted from exhibit P3, that the plaintiff understood the defendant wrongly converted the lease finance facility into an overdraft facility with its attendant consequences. Unfortunately, however, I find it difficult to agree. Rather it seems to me that, in accordance with the terms of the lease finance transaction, it definitely expired on the 28th day of February 2003. By the end of the above mentioned date, the plaintiff was expected to have concluded payments, unless the parties had agreed otherwise. Having failed to do so, however, the defendant then started charging interests on the said outstanding balance. During the relevant period, the defendant charged varying rates of interests.”

The trial court then held that:-

“The complaint of the plaintiff is to the effect that the rates of interests charged by the defendant offended the Central Bank’s regulated rates of interests. To drive home the point the plaintiff rendered in evidence exhibit P9.”

After restating the law that he who alleges must prove, the trial court held that –

“It follows, therefore, that for the plaintiff to succeed in her claim that excessive interests were charged against her, she must establish to the satisfaction of the court, that the offending rates of interests and penalties were, indeed, in excess of the prevailing Central Bank rates of interests. The only way she can succeed in doing so, is by showing to the satisfaction of the court, what the Central Bank approved prevailing rates of interests actually charged, and then work out the amount of the excess. It would be very difficult for the plaintiff to succeed in doing so except with the assistance of an accountant. See First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Uyada (2003) NWLR (pt. 805) at 504. It seems to me that it was an attempt to put with the above stated challenge that the plaintiff prepared, and tendered evidence exhibit P3, particularly pages 15 to 21 thereof. Unfortunately, however, in my humble opinion, that exhibit failed far short of the expectations. The document under reference has a column referred to “excess interest”. I took a lot of pains to study the table (Appendix D to exhibit P3). It was very difficult for me to appreciate how the plaintiff arrived at the amount of the excess interests which recorded in the document under reference. My difficulty stemmed from the fact that the document in question remained completely silent on the specific Central Bank prevailing rates of interest during the period under consideration. This in my humble opinion, is the heart of the matter. It was what the exhibit set out to do, to work out, to the satisfaction of the court, the amount of the excess. This, however, it failed to achieve.”

It is clear from the foregoing that if the appellant failed to prove excess and arbitrary interest charges, it means that its indebtedness as stated in exhibit 2 is correct. The trial court having held that the appellant has failed to prove the excessive and arbitrary charges as alleged, it follows therefore that its indebtedness as shown on exhibit 2 is established. I find nothing wrong in this approach of the trial court. There was clearly no basis for the trial court to embark on a separate review and evaluation of the pleadings and evidence in respect of the counter-claim. The approach of the trial court is reasonable, accords with common sense and has not occasioned any miscarriage of justice. For the above reasons, I resolve issue No. 2 in favour of the respondent.

On the whole this appeal fails for lack of merit. It is accordingly hereby dismissed. The appellant shall pay cost of N17,000 to the respondent.

MOJEED, ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.: I agree.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: I had the preview of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, J.C.A. I fully agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. I consequently dismiss the appeal with costs as awarded by my learned brother.

Appearances

Obi Anizoba Esq.For Appellant

AND

Fred A. Okwesa Esq.For Respondent