CHIEF GABRIEL OKWOR & ORS v. EKENE UGWU & ORS
(2013)LCN/6521(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 21st day of November, 2013
CA/E/272M/2011
RATIO
DETERMINING WHETHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHOW GOOD CAUSE WHY AN APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD
In determining whether the grounds of appeal show good cause why the appeal should be heard, the court is restricted to the good cause of the grounds and not whether they have the capacity to propel the appeal to success, as to do so will amount to deciding the appeal. In a way, the court must be satisfied that the exercise of appealing at this late stage is worthwhile, by reference to the proposed grounds of appeal. See Lamai v. Orbih (1980) 5-7 SC 28. Where however the grounds of appeal complained of lack of jurisdiction, the reasons for the delay in appealing are viewed with leniency, as they would cease to be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. See Hakido Kpema v. State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.17) 396 at 405; Bintumi v. Fantami (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.581) 264 and Ukwu v. Bange (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.518) 527. Per ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. CHIEF GABRIEL OKWOR
2. ELDER SYLVANUS NNAMENE
(For themselves and on behalf of other members of Nkwubor Nike Community)
3. MR. NICHODBMUS OKWOR
4. ELDER UGWU NNAMENE
(For themselves and on behalf of other members of Umuezeoha Nwikpa Family of Amorji Nike Community)
[APPLICANTS/PARTIES AFFECTED AND HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE CASE] Appellant(s)
AND
EKENE UGWU
(for himself and on behalf of Nkwubor Nike Community)
AND
1. FELIX UGWU
2. OKECHUKWU NNAMENE
3. JOSEPHAT ANIKE
4. FRANCIS NNAMENE
5. KENNETH AGBOWO
6. VENTRUS BOYI
7. DONATUS ANIKE
8. LAZARUS OGBU Respondent(s)
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): By a motion on notice dated 11th day of March, 2013 and filed on 21st March, 2013, the Applicants/Parties affected and having an interest in the case, sought for the following orders:
(a) Enlarging the time within which the applicants may apply for leave to appeal from the decision of the Enugu State High Court, sitting at Enugu in Suit No. E/663/2004 EKENE UGWU vs. FELIX UGWU & ORS. by his Lordship Hon. Justice R.N. Onuorah on the 29th day of April, 2008 as parties affected and having an interest in the case.
(b) Granting leave to the applicants to appeal to this Honourable court as parties affected and having an interest in the subject matter of Suit No. E/663/2004; EKENE UGWU VS. FELIX UGWU & ORS., in which judgment was delivered on 29th day of April, 2008 by his Lordship Hon. Justice R.N. Onuorah of Enugu High Court sitting at Enugu.
(c) Extending the time within which the Applicants may appeal (file Notice and Grounds of Appeal) as parties interested/affected by the decision of the Enugu State High Court, sitting at Enugu in Suit No. E/663/2004 – EKENE UGWU v. FELIX UGWU & ORS, delivered by his Lordship Hon. Justice R. N. Onuorah on the 29th day of April, 2008.
AND for such further and/or other order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
The grounds upon which the reliefs are anchored are stated on the face of the motion paper.
The applicants rely on 11 grounds as well as 10 Exhibits.
The grounds read thus:-
1. “Two Communities (the Applicants) i.e. Nkwubor Nike Community and Umuezeoha Nwikpa family of Amorji Nike Community jointly sold their (“jointly”) owned Communal land, in their representative capacity to the Daughters of Divine Love Congregation.
2. Three members (brothers) of a family in one of the Communities (Nkwubor Community) that sold to the Daughter of Divine Love Congregation were aggrieved by the sale of the land.
3. The three brothers purporting to be acting for and on behalf of the Nkwubor Nike Community sued some members of the Nkwubor Nike Community in their individual capacity at the Enugu State High Court, sitting at Enugu in Suit No.E/663/2004, claiming for:-
(a) A Declaration that Nkwubor Nike Community represented by the plaintiffs is entitled to customary/statutory right of occupancy in respect of a piece or parcel of land called “Isi Anwuri” land situate at Nkwubor in Ujodo Local Development Area of Enugu State of Nigeria.
(b) One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) damages for trespass.
(c) Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, assigns, privies and whoever acts for or on their behalf from selling, alienating, transferring, building, cultivating or doing anything on the land which may be detrimental to the right and interest of the plaintiffs.
4. The same three brothers also sued the Daughter of Divine Love Congregation in the same Enugu State High Court, sitting at Enugu in Suit No. E/680/2005 also claiming the same relief as in Suit No. E/663/04 against them.
5. The two suits were over the same subject matter i.e. the land sold by the Applicants i.e. the two Communities-Nkwubor Nike Community and Umuezeoha Nwikpa family of Amorji Nike Community and sold to Daughters of Divine Love Congregation and were at the same time pending before the same Enugu State High Court, sitting at Enugu, but were being presided over by two different Honourable Judges of the Enugu State High Court.
6. The Applicants/Parties affected and having interest in the Suit were not aware of Suit No. E/663/04 and were not joined in the Suit, even though the land, the subject matter was sold by them, as the original owners.
7. The Daughters of Divine Love Congregation who bought the land in dispute from the applicants were not also joined in the Suit i.e. Suit No. E/663/04.
8. In Suit No. E/680/2005 wherein the Daughters of Divine Love Congregation were sued, they applied to the Honourable Court and the representative of the Nkwubor Nike Community and Umuezeoha Nwikpa family of Amorji Nike Community, were joined.
9. The defendants in Suit No. E/663/04 who are members of the Nkwubor Nike Community but who were sued in their individual capacity abandoned the Suit and a judgment was entered.
10. The applicants became aware of the Suit and Judgment after time within which they are to appeal has elapsed.
11. The subject matter of the two suits is the same land sold by the Applicants to the Daughters of Divine Congregation as Iyaka/Oguji land.”
In support of the said motion is a 41 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 3rd Applicant. Applicants also filed a 28 paragraph further affidavit on 15/04/2013. Another 15 paragraph further further affidavit was also filed on 12/05/2013.
The 1st set of respondents on their part filed a 28 paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by the 1st set of respondents (Ekene Ugwu) on 12/04/13. There are five (5) exhibits attached to the counter-affidavit. Also a 36 paragraph further counter affidavit was duly filed on 26/04/13 along with 10 (ten) exhibits.
Written addresses were filed and exchanged by parties. When the application came up for hearing on 7/10/13, learned counsel for the Applicants Mrs. Okoye relied on all the affidavits and exhibits attached to them. Learned counsel also adopted the written address dated 25/04/13 and filed on 29/04/13. A reply on point of law dated 27/05/13 and filed on 28/05/13 was also adopted by counsel in urging the court to grant the application.
Learned counsel for the 1st set of respondent Miss Jenifer also adopted the written address dated and filed 10/05/13 and urged the court to dismiss the application. For the second set of respondents Obinna Esq. did not oppose the application.
The applicants in their written address raised three issues for determination as follows:-
1. Whether the decision (Judgment) has affected the rights of the applicants.
2. Whether there is good and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within time.
3. Whether the applicants’ grounds of appeal prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
The 1st set of respondent also raised four (4) issues for determination as follows:-
1. Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements by law to warrant their application being granted.
2. Whether the applicants being not parties in Suit No. E/663/2004 and the 2nd set of respondents could have constituted any estoppel.
3. Whether the principle guiding the locus standi is not against the applicants pertaining to the case in suit No. E/663/2004.
4. Whether the grounds of appeal contain substantial grounds to be canvassed on appeal.
I shall in considering the application raise a sole issue for determination which to my mind envelops the entire issues as formulated by the counsel, to wit:-
“Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case as shown by the affidavit evidence and exhibits before this court, this application ought to be granted.”
I wish to note that in resolving this sole issue, I will where necessary refer to the arguments canvassed in support of the issues raised by the respective counsel.
From the reliefs sought, applicants are essentially seeking for two main reliefs. First, Applicants are seeking enlargement of time within which to seek leave to appeal. Secondly, applicants are seeking to do so as interested parties. First, applicants must fulfill conditions for obtaining enlargement of time. Secondly, applicants must fulfill the conditions for obtaining leave to appeal as interested parties. Applicants are required to satisfy both sets of conditions at once. If they fail to satisfy either set of conditions, then the entire application is doomed for failure.
In considering the two sets of conditions, I find it convenient to start with the one relating to enlargement of time. The conditions are set out under Order 7 Rule 10(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, which provides as follows:-
“10(2). Every application for enlargement of time within which to appeal shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period, and by grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. When time is so enlarged, a copy of the order granting such enlargement shall be annexed to the Notice of Appeal.”
The language of this provision is clear enough. To succeed in his application, the applicant is duty bound to file an affidavit which must set forth good and substantial reasons for failing to appeal, or seek leave to do so within time. The second condition is that the proposed grounds of appeal must prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. The two conditions must be satisfied conjunctively before enlargement of time can be granted.
See In Re: Adewunmi & Ors. (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 83) 1 and Cooperative and Commerce Bank (Nigeria) Ltd. vs. Emeka Ogwuru (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.284) 637. This is so because each of the two legs under Order 7 Rule 10(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court has a separate and distinct purpose of its own to serve.
With regards to the first condition that is whether good and substantial reasons have been given for failing to act within the stipulated period, applicants rely on paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the supporting affidavit as well as Exhibits D and E attached to same. For clarity, the paragraphs are reproduced hereunder as follows:-
“25. That in all the processes filed in court by the plaintiffs in Suit No. E/680/2005, they never mentioned the pendency of Suit No. E/663/2004, and did not inform the Honourable Court about it.
26. That Suit No. E/663/2004 and Suit No. E/680/2005 were pending at the same High Court Judicial Division, in respect of the same parcel of land, and same reliefs.
27. That we were informed by the members of Daughters of Divine Love Congregation and we verily believe them that when Suit No. E/680/2005 was on 29th day of July 2008 adjourned to 14/10/2008, the Plaintiff/Respondent and his late brothers thereafter went into the land surveying the land in dispute.
28. That the Daughters of Divine Love Congregation consequently reported the Plaintiff and his late brothers, they were arrested and there at informed the police, that they have judgment in their favour in respect of the land.
29. That members of Daughters of Divine Love Congregation inform us and we verily believe them that it was the police that gave them a copy of the judgment which they made available to us, as the Judgment was not served on us or made known to us before the report to the police.
30. That the Plaintiffs know that we have an interest in the land (we are the original owners and granted the land to the Daughters of Divine Love Congregation) as is shown in their statement of claim in Suit No. E/663/2004.
31. That on becoming aware of the judgment, we consulted our counsel who advised us and I verily believe him that since our interest is affected, we should take steps to protect same.
32. That our counsel Chief A.O. Mogboh, SAN has also advised us and we verily believe him that since we were not parties originally in the case at the High Court, we need leave of court to appeal against the Judgment of the court. We immediately on the 11/9/08 filed a motion on Notice for extension of time to appeal etc. dated 4/9/08 which was withdrawn and struck out by the Honourable court on 12/10/11.
Learned counsel for the applicants had contended in the written address that the time within which the applicants could have appealed within time had elapsed before they became aware of the judgment. It was also argued that the applicants were not parties to the suit and cannot go back to the High Court which delivered the judgment to set it aside. Reference was made to Order 10 Rule 9(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Enugu State 2006. The only opportunity is to appeal to this court as interested parties under Section 243 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Counsel also referred to paragraph 32 of the supporting affidavit to show that applicants filed similar application in 2008, which was withdrawn and struck out in the year 2011 before filing the present one. Learned counsel was of the view that applicants have good and substantial reason for failure to appeal within time. They briefed counsel on time as such inadvertence or mistake of counsel will not be used against them.
The 1st set of Respondent had averred in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the counter-affidavit that applicants were aware of the existence of Suit No. E/663/2004 as such it is now too late to appeal against a judgment delivered on 29th of April 2008, to which they were not parties and have not applied to be parties. Learned counsel for the 1st set of Respondent had argued in the written address that applicants cannot claim ignorance of the pendency of Suit No. E/663/2004. That Mr. Felix Ugwu in the 2nd set of Respondents being one of the representatives of Nkwubor who sold Iyaka/Oguji land to the Daughters of Divine Love Congregation was sued in E/663/2004. He did not file any defence but withdrew from the suit and judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff in that case. It was contended that applicants ought to have applied to the lower court for extension of time to have the judgment set aside. Reliance was placed on Order 44 Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, of Enugu State 2006.
From the facts averred in the affidavit in support, it is evident that judgment in Suit No. E/663/04 was delivered on the 29th day of April, 2008 while the applicants became aware of the suit and the judgment on the 29th July 2008 i.e. three months after the judgment had been delivered. By then, time to challenge the judgment had expired. The applicants not being aware of the pendency of the case and the judgment subsequently delivered in the matter could not have appealed within the prescribed period. I agree with the contention of applicants’ counsel that since applicants were not parties to the Suit No.E/663/04, they cannot invoke order 10 Rule 9(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006 of Enugu State to ask the lower court for enlargement of time to apply for the setting aside of the judgment. The argument canvassed by counsel to the 1st set of respondent on this point cannot be sustained.
The materials supplied in the counter affidavit of the 1st set of respondent are not sufficient to show that applicants had knowledge of the pendency of the matter before the lower court. I am satisfied that applicants have advanced good and substantial reason why they could not appeal within the prescribed statutory period of three months provided by law. I am of the firm view that applicants have satisfied the first condition.
The second condition to be satisfied is predicated on the grounds of appeal. The proposed Notice and Grounds of Appeal marked as exhibit ‘J’ is attached to the affidavit in support as exhibit ‘A’ and same referred to in paragraph 34. Applicants filed six grounds of appeal. The grounds shorn of particulars read as follows:
GROUND 1:
“The court erred in law in giving judgment in the case without giving appellant a hearing.
GROUND 2:
The learned trial judge erred in law in entering judgment for the Plaintiffs and his late brothers before the expiration of time granted the defendants to comply with the provisions of the Enugu State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006.
GROUND 3:
The learned trial judge erred in law in entering judgment for the plaintiff without giving the defendants a hearing.
GROUND 4:
The trial judge erred in law in hearing and determining the Motion on Notice before the expiration of time granted to the defendants to file a counter affidavit, if they oppose the application of the applicants.
GROUND 5:
The learned trial judge erred in law in entering judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and his late brothers, for declaratory reliefs without hearing evidence.
GROUND 6:
The learned trial judge erred in law in hearing and determining the suit when the plaintiffs abused court processes, and the suit an abuse of court process.”
The question now is whether the grounds of appeal show good cause why the appeal should be heard. As to whether a ground show good cause why appeal should be heard the Supreme Court in Obikoya vs. Wema Bank Ltd. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 157 had defined such ground of appeal as being a ground which raises substantial issue of fact and law for the consideration of the appellate court. The Apex Court per Obaseki JSC at page 178 had this to say:-
“A ground of appeal showing good cause why an appeal should be heard is a ground which raises substantial issues, fact and law for the consideration of the court. It is a ground which cannot be dismissed with a waive of the hand or as totally lacking in substance. It is a ground which evokes a serious debate as to the correctness of the decision of the court below. It is a ground which taxes the intellect and reasoning faculties of the appeal Judges. It is a ground which is not frivolous”
In determining whether the grounds of appeal show good cause why the appeal should be heard, the court is restricted to the good cause of the grounds and not whether they have the capacity to propel the appeal to success, as to do so will amount to deciding the appeal. In a way, the court must be satisfied that the exercise of appealing at this late stage is worthwhile, by reference to the proposed grounds of appeal. See Lamai v. Orbih (1980) 5-7 SC 28. Where however the grounds of appeal complained of lack of jurisdiction, the reasons for the delay in appealing are viewed with leniency, as they would cease to be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. See Hakido Kpema v. State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.17) 396 at 405; Bintumi v. Fantami (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.581) 264 and Ukwu v. Bange (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.518) 527.
Learned counsel for the applicants Mrs. Okoye while arguing issue three contended in the written address that grounds 1, 3, 4 and 6 raise issues of fair hearing and abuse of court process which touch on the jurisdiction of the trial court. Counsel argued that the two suits i.e. Suit No. E/663/04 and Suit No. E/680/05 were in respect of the same subject matter, the same reliefs and were pending at the same High Court Judicial Division at the same time. The act according to counsel is an abuse of court process which touches on the jurisdiction of the trial court. It is very fundamental she argued. Reliance was placed on Ukwu v. Bunge (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt.518) 527 at 541 paras H – A. It is an issue that can be raised suo motu by the court. See Fagbenro vs. Orogun (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.284) 662. It was also contended that applicants as necessary/proper parties were not given opportunity to be heard and this also touches on the jurisdiction of the trial High Court as necessary/proper parties were not brought before it. Reference was made to Exhibit ‘E’ the statement of claim of Ekene Ugwu and his late brothers in Suit No. E/663/04 attached to the affidavit in support of the application and the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 at 595.
Learned counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants since the proposed grounds of appeal prima facie show a good cause why the appeal should be heard, more so, several issues touching on jurisdiction were raised by the applicants in the proposed Notice and Grounds of appeal. Counsel to the 1st set of respondent while arguing issue 4 in her written address reviewed the six grounds of appeal and concluded that the grounds are not substantial to be argued on appeal. Counsel urged the court to refuse the application.
I have carefully examined the six grounds of appeal reproduced supra vis-a-vis the judgment sought to be appealed against.
The grounds complained of lack of jurisdiction and fair hearing. Applicants were not made parties to the suit but have shown that they have interest in the land in dispute. Some of the grounds raised substantial issues which are prima facie arguable and not frivolous. I therefore see no reason why the appeal based on them should not be heard. What is important at this stage as stated earlier is for applicants to show that the proposed grounds of appeal, prima facie are arguable. Whether or not the appeal will succeed is another matter which need not concern us here.
I hold that the second requirement has been satisfied by the applicant.
The result of all that I have said is that applicants have satisfied the conditions for the grant of enlargement of time. If applicants show that they are indeed interested parties, as recognized by law, then time will be enlarged for them to appeal.
If however, they fail to make such showing, enlargement of time will still be refused, notwithstanding that they fulfilled all the conditions for it. This is because extension of time will serve no useful purpose in the circumstances. That then brings me to the second set of conditions, namely those relating to application for appealing as interested parties.
The applicants must firstly show that a right of appeal has enured to them. The applicants not being parties to the decision against which leave to appeal is sought must show that they have an interest in the outcome of the appeal. Applicants must also show that the decision had caused them some grief, loss, disadvantage or affected their title or possession.
See Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation vs. Enyibros Food Processing Company & Anor IN RE Charles N. Mmbamalu (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.744) at 143 at 158 paragraphs E-G; 159 paragraphs A-C; 163 Paragraph G.
The right of a person to appeal against the decision, given in which he was not a party and at the hearing of which he did not participate is conferred by Section 243 (a) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides:-
“243. Any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Federal High Court or High Court conferred by this constitution shall be:-
(a) Exercisable in the case of Civil Procedure at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal, at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter…”
By this provision, all that a person needs to do to bring himself within it is to show that he is a person ‘having an interest in the matter.”
The expression person having interest has been defined as synonymous with “person aggrieved” meaning a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision had been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. See Ikonne v. C.O.P. & Anor. (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.36) 476 at 503; Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.10) 806; IN RE Madaki (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.142) 266 and Williams v. Mokwe (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt.945) 249.
Learned counsel for the applicants while arguing issue 1 in their written address relied on the case of Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Enyibros Food Processing Company & Anor IN RE Charles N. Mmbamalu (supra) wherein this court laid down conditions to be satisfied by an applicant seeking leave to appeal as an interested party. The applicants further referred this court to Exhibit B and B1 which are the documents of title jointly executed in favour of the Daughters of Divine Love Congregation by the representatives of the two communities and if there is any default in title they transferred, they may have the duty to indemnify the Daughter of Divine Love Congregation.
On the part of the 1st set of respondent, learned counsel contended that the Applicants/parties affected and having interest have not satisfied the requirements to warrant their application to be given desired consideration and grant same. Reliance was placed on the case of Alhaji Mohammed Waziri v. Ibrahim Tahir Gumel & Anor (2012) LPELR-SC 32/2005 wherein the Supreme Court per Rhodes Vivour JSC held that:-
“An applicant seeking leave to appeal as an interested party, must make a detailed deposition in his affidavit in support of the application to show (a) his interest in the matter (b) Why he was not a party in the trial court and (c) good reason for delaying in filing the application.” See also Owena Bank v. N.S.E. Ltd. (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.515) page 11.
Counsel further contended that applicants must not only show that they are persons interested but also that the order made prejudicially affected their interest. It was also contended that applicants have no recognizable interest in the land in dispute.
Counsel urged the court to refuse the application.
Having regard to the facts and the materials placed before the court, I have no doubt that applicants are parties having interest as envisaged under Section 243(a) of the 1999 Constitution so as to entitle them to seek leave to appeal, etc. Applicants have clearly satisfied the conditions laid down by the Apex Court in Alhaji Mohammed Waziri vs. Ibrahim Tahir Gumel & Anor (supra). The Applicants vide Exhibit B and B1 as shown in their paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support have shown this court sufficient interest in the subject matter as required by law. Applicants also gave sufficient explanation as to why they were not joined as parties in the suit No. E/663/2004. The Applicants in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the affidavit in support averred to the facts pointing to their lack of knowledge of the suit at the trial court, ranging from non-service of the court processes and the failure of plaintiff/respondent to inform them of the pendency of the suit. These averments remain uncontroverted. Apart from mere general denial, 1st set of Respondent did not supply sufficient materials to disprove the facts averred by the applicants. It is my humble view that justice and fairness demands that applicants be allowed to ventilate their grievances on appeal as interested parties.
Whether the appeal will succeed or not is not for consideration at this stage since prima facie applicants have raised serious issues in their grounds of appeal that are arguable and not frivolous.
From all what I have said, I hold the view that applicants have satisfied the two sets of conditions set out earlier in this ruling and are therefore entitled to the exercise of court’s discretion in their favour as interested parties.
Accordingly, I hold that the sole issue raised for determination is resolved in favour of the applicants.
Consequently, the application is granted as prayed. I make the following orders:-
(1) Time is extended to today for the interested parties/applicants to seek leave to appeal as interested parties against the judgment of High Court of Justice Enugu State, sitting at Enugu in Suit No. E/663/2004; EKENE UGWU Vs. FELIX UGWU & Ors., delivered by Hon. Justice R.N. Onuorah on the 29th day of April, 2008.
(2) Leave is also granted to the applicants to appeal against the said judgment of the lower court delivered on the 29th day of April, 2008 as parties having interest in the matter.
(3) Time is extended for the interested Parties/Applicants to file their Notice and Grounds of Appeal. The Notice and Grounds of Appeal shall be filed within 21 days from today and same shall be in terms of the proposed Notice and Grounds of Appeal marked Exhibit ‘J’ attached to the affidavit in support of this application.
(4) N10,000.00 costs is awarded in favour of the 1st set of Respondent against the applicants.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I have been privileged to read the draft of the ruling just delivered by my learned brother A.G. MSHELIA, J.C.A. and I agree completely that this application like its sister case of CA/E/271M/2011 Daughters of Divine Love Congregation and 2 Ors V. Ekene Ugwu & 8 Ors. is meritorious and is hereby granted as prayed.
I abide by all the orders as made by my Lord including costs.
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the ruling just delivered by my Learned Sister, ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA JCA. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions in the said judgment. I also grant the application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the judgment of Enugu State High Court in suit No. E/663/2004 delivered on 29th April, 2008, for leave to appeal against the said judgment and for extension of time to file the notice of appeal against the said judgment. I abide by all the orders in the Lead judgment including the order of costs.
Appearances
B. C. Okoye (Mrs) with Ndukwo Ndukwo Ogbuya Esq., for Applicants/Parties Affected and having an interest in the matter.For Appellant
AND
Okoh Jenifer (Mrs) for 1st set of Respondent.
Obinna Ubah Esq. (held brief of) E. E. Ofobeme Esq. for 2nd set of Respondents.For Respondent
