GLAXO SMITHKLINE PLC v. ALI ZAKARI JIYA
(2014)LCN/6775(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 20th day of January, 2014
CA/K/147/2012
RATIO
EFFECT OF A COURT PROCESS SIGNED BY A LAW FIRM
The position of the law on this subject is no longer debatable and it is, as established by a long line of Supreme Court decisions, that a court process so signed by a law firm is a nullity and it is void ab initio and being a statement of claim, it cannot sustain a cause of action and a judgment predicated on such a process must be set aside. It is a requirement of substantive law, and not of procedural law, and thus it cannot be waived and it is irrelevant that the party complaining did not show that it suffered a miscarriage of justice or prejudice by such signing of the court process and it is an issue that can be raised even at the Supreme Court for the first time – Okafor Vs Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt 1043) 521, Oketade Vs Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt 1195) 63, SLB Consortium Ltd Vs NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt 1252) 317, Braithwaite Vs Skye Bank Plc (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1, First Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Maiwada & Ors (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt 1346) 444, Alawiye Vs Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt 1348) 570, Minister of Works and Transport, Adamawa State Vs Yakubu (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt 1351) 481, and Okarika Vs Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt 1352) 19. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HABEEB A.O. ABIRU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
GLAXO SMITHKLINE PLC Appellant(s)
AND
ALI ZAKARI JIYA Respondent(s)
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): By the Amended Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant on 20/11/2012, the Appellant is contesting the judgment handed down on the 3rd March, 2011 against it by the Kano State fHigh Court in Suit No. K/131/2004 which it predicated on five grounds of appeal. It sought that the said judgment be set aside. This appeal emanated from the civil proceeding instituted against the Appellant by the Respondent before the Kano State High Court and in which the Respondent, via his Statement of Claim dated the 4th March, 2004 sought against the Appellant the following reliefs:
“(a) A declaration that the Defendant’s failure or refusal to pay the Plaintiff his full terminal benefits/entitlements four years after his employment was terminated is without justification and therefore unlawful.
(b) the sum of N300,662.38 (Three Hundred Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Two Naira, Thirty Eight Kobo) being the terminal benefit/entitlements of the Plaintiff.
(c) 10% Court interest from date of judgment until judgment sum is fully liquidated.
(d) Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) as general damages for unlawfully withholding Plaintiff’s entitlement.
(e) Cost of this action.”
It was averred that the Respondent was engaged in the services of the Appellant on the 1st June, 1994. He later rose to the position of Business Development Manager overseeing vaccines, ethicals and Government business in the North West Region of Nigeria operating from Kano. After six years, he was disengaged by a Letter of Termination dated the 10th January, 2000. Despite the correspondences between the parties, the Appellant refused to pay his entitlements to him which he alleged had occasioned a lot of hardship to him.
The Appellant duly responded to the allegations contained in the Respondent’s pleading by filing a Further Amended Statement of Defence of twenty-two paragraphs dated the 6th March, 2009. The Respondent, in turn, filed a Reply dated the 25th January, 2010, to the Appellant’s Further Amended Statement of Defence.
However, hearing in the suit commenced on the 16th June, 2008. The Respondent, a Pharmacist by profession, testified as P.W.1., and gave account of all that transpired between him and the Appellant, and, tendered eight Exhibits. He denied being indebted to the Appellant to the tune of N220,000.00. He was cross-examined on the 25th November, 2008. It was after the Respondent’s testimony that the Appellant sought for an amendment of its Amended Statement of Defence. Nevertheless, the Respondent was granted leave on 27/7/10 to amend his Reply to the Appellant’s Further Amended Statement of Defence. All these then necessitated the recall of the Respondent on 17/3/2010. He further testified in great length and was subsequently cross-examined. Thereafter, D.W.1. was presented for his evidence. He was quite detailed and was extensively cross-examined. The parties later addressed the trial Court via their respective Counsel. Then, on the 3rd March, 2011, the trial court delivered its judgment in favour of the Respondent by awarding the four reliefs sought by him. This irked the Appellant that it felt the urge to lodge this appeal. The parties filed and exchanged their Briefs of Arguments. At the hearing of this appeal on the parties adopted their Briefs. The Appellant presented three issues for the determination of this Court which read:
“1. Whether the lower Court was right to assume jurisdiction over a matter that was initiated by an entity with no authority in law to do so.
2. Whether based on the evidence on record, and what transpired at the lower Court, the learned trial Judge was right to award the Respondent the sum of N300,662.30 claimed as his terminal benefits.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to award the Respondent general damages in the sum of N2 million or any amount at all for breach of his employment contract.”
These issues were acceptable to the Respondents that it adopted them in its Brief of Argument.
In respect of issue No. 1, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, J.M.M. Majiyagbe Esq; contended that the practice of law in Nigeria is the exclusive preserve of Legal Practitioners who have formally qualified to practice law in Nigeria, and that by section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation, 2004, a Legal Practitioner is a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of the Act to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor either generally or for the purpose of any particular proceeding. Further, by section 2(1) of the Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor if, only if, his name is on the Roll. He then submitted that save for the litigants who wish to represent themselves, all other processes signed on behalf of a litigant shall be by a qualified Legal Practitioner in law. Learned Counsel emphasized that the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim filed on behalf of the Plaintiff in the suit were signed by Steve Adehi & Co., a non qualified Legal Practitioner. He relied on Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Part 1043 page 521; Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ANLR page 587; Macfoy vs. United Africa Company (1961) 3 AER page 1169; In Re Pritchard (Deceased) (1963) 1 AER; Egbe vs. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR Part 47 page 1 and Ajibona vs. Kolawole (1996) 10 NWLR Part 476 page 22 and submitted that the initiating processes filed in the suit before the Kano state High Court will suffer the same as the processes in Nweke vs. Okafor (supra), meaning that all the proceedings that took place upon the incompetent initiating Court processes, both at the High Court of Kano and the Court of Appeal, Kaduna are null and void as both Courts lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He then, urged that judgment be entered in favour of the Appellant.
With respect to issue No. 2, learned Counsel took into consideration the respective sums of N80,457.38 and N142,000.00 which the Respondent admitted had been given to him already by the Appellant, and, which the Respondent admitted during cross-examination, he had been allowed to lift stock worth over the sum of N142,379.12 for himself. He submitted that since the Respondent admitted the said sums, they ought to have been deducted from the alleged total sum of N300,662.38 being sought by the Respondent. He made reference to Akibu vs. Odutan (1992) 2 NWLR Part 222 pages 226 – 227, paragraphs H-A; Obimiami & Stone (Nigeria) Limited vs. African Continental Bank Limited (1992) 3 NWLR Part 229 page 301; and, “K” Like Inc. vs. K. R. International (Nigeria) Limited (1993) 5 NWLR Part 292 page 183 paragraph B, and stated that facts admitted require no further proof, and, that the award of N300,662.30 was a double compensation which should be set aside.
Submitting in respect of issue No. 3 which borders on the award of N2 million general damages for breach of contract of employment, learned Counsel asserted that in cases of breach of contract of employment, the employee is only entitled to his salary in lieu of notice and/ or the payment of his entitlements and nothing else. This he based on the Supreme Court decision in Ative vs. Kabelmetal Nigeria Limited (2008) 10 NWLR Part 1095 page 399 where the trial Court awarded N2 million as damages for wrongful dismissal. It was held, per Tabai, J.S.C., that in cases of ordinary contract of employment, the only remedy available to an employee who is wrongfully terminated is the award of salary for the period of notice and other legitimate entitlements due to him at the time the employment was brought to an end. Learned Counsel further commented on the case of Shena Security Company Limited vs. Afropak (Nigeria) Limited (2008) 18 NWLR Part 118 page77 where the trial Court awarded the Plaintiff only his one month’s salary in lieu of notice, which he appealed against up to the Supreme Court. The apex Court held that damages recoverable therein do not include speculative or sentimental values. He, therefore, urged that the award of N2 million in general damages be set aside.
In the Respondent’s reaction to issue No. 1, it was submitted that the Appellant’s contention in that respect is a mere technicality aimed at scuttling the end of justice, by disenfranchising the Respondent because, the moment the case is struck out, the case will be caught up by Statute of Limitation. He argued that the earlier Supreme Court case of Cole vs. Martins (1968) All NLR 161 was not considered in Okafor vs. Nweke (supra) cited by the Appellant’s Counsel, and since the Supreme Court case did not consider the case, the said case is still applicable and that this Court will be right in abiding by it. He relied on Adegoke Motors Limited vs. Adesanya (1988) 2 NWLR Part 74 page 101 and argued that where there are two conflicting decisions of a higher Court, the lower Court is free to choose which of the decisions to follow. Learned Counsel strongly submitted that the Supreme Court is bound by its earlier decision, therefore, argument of Counsel for the Appellant should be discarded and the issue be resolved in favour of the Respondent.
With respect to issue No. 2, it was contended that the past judgment previously entered in the suit by the trial Judge in favour of the Respondent cannot vitiate the present judgment of the lower Court still including the same admitted sum of N80,457.38k. Regarding the alleged sum of N142,000.00, it was argued that the issue was not raised by the Appellant at the lower Court, therefore, it is precluded from raising it at this Court. The evidence of D.W1 under cross-examination was referred to and it was explicitly stated that the stock of N142,000.00 which the Respondent took was a different transaction entirely from his entitlements upon cessation from employment and that was paid to the Respondent for stocks of 1997 and 1998, long before his employment was terminated. He contented it was not part of his entitlement and, that, it was not part of the Company’s policy to settle entitlement by stock. He relied on the provisions of section 1(a) of the Labour Act which prohibits the payment of workers’ remuneration by any other means but by legal tender. He then urged this Court to resolve this issue against the Appellant.
On issue No. 3, learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the damages the Respondent sought for was for non-payment of his entitlement and not for wrongful termination, therefore, the cases of Ative vs. Kabelmetal Nigeria Limited (2005) and Shena Security Company Limited vs. Afropak Nigeria Limited (supra) cited by the Appellant’s Counsel are not applicable to this case. He urged that this appeal be dismissed.
I have carefully analysed the convoluted argument of learned Counsel for the Respondent under issue No. 1, that the Supreme Court is bound by its decision in Cole vs. Martins (supra) despite its recent pronouncements in various authorities. If I may ask, would Counsel compel the apex Court to follow its previous decision when its latest decision had overruled its previous stance on the question of law involved? Nevertheless, it is an established principle of law that when this Court is faced with two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court on an issue, the Court is bound to follow the latest. This is so because the Supreme Court has an inherent power to overrule itself. If the latest decision is in conflict with the earlier one, it follows that the latest decision has overruled the earlier one. See Dahiru vs. Kamale (2005) 9 NWLR Part 927 page 8; and Osakwe vs. FCE, Asaba (2010) 10 NWLR Part 1201 page 1 where it was then expressed that where there are two irreconciliable decisions of the Supreme Court, the subordinate Courts are enjoined to abide by the later decision. It has been variously expressed that Court of Appeal must accept and apply loyally, the decisions of the Supreme Court and where the decisions manifestly conflict, the latter decision is binding on the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court in Saltzgitter Stahl GMBF vs. Tunji Dosunmu Industries Ltd (2010) LPER 2999 (SC), per Chukwuma-Eneh, J.S.C., stated that it is a settled principle that where there are two conflicting decisions of the House of Lords, the House cannot be bound by both decisions; it is only fundamental that it is free to choose between the two decisions. In that case, and on that basis the apex Court preferred the Milangos’ case reflecting current judicial opinion in matters whether judgment sum can be given in foreign currency or judgment can be given in foreign currency.
It need be stated that, the Writ of Summons and the Respondents’ Statement of Claim filed at the lower Court were all authenticated by Steve Adehi & Co, a Law Firm. This appeal was heard on 21/10/2013, and, prior to its hearing, the Supreme Court, had, on the 15th April, 2011, delivered its decisions in SLB Consortium Limited vs. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2011) 9 NWLR Part 1282 Part 317 which learned Counsel ought to have adverted his mind to and then supply the same to this Court by submitting List of Additional Authorities, but that did not occur to him.
The case of Cole vs. Martins (supra) relied upon by Counsel was carefully scrutinized by the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen, J.S.C., in S.L.B. Consortium’s case (supra). In it, the Supreme Court reproduced the provisions of Order 26 Rule 4(3) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000; sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975 and its decision in Okafor vs. Nweke (supra) and then posed the question “Is Adewale Adesokan & Co.” a legal practitioner so as to come under the provisions of the above order?” It then stated that to answer the question, recourse must be had to section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act which defines a Legal Practitioner.
It is, therefore, clear in the Supreme Court’s decision in S.L.B. Consortium’s case (supra) that the Respondent’s Counsel’s argument in respect of issue No. 1, is spurious and without any foundation in law. I am tempted further at this stage to refer to the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in F.B.N. Plc vs. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 444; Alawiye vs. Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 570 and Okarika vs. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR Part 1352 page 19.
In the case of F.B.N. Plc vs. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 444 at 456 and 461, Fabiyi, J.S.C. expressed thus:
“It is my view that if the decision in Okafor vs. Nweke is revisited as urged, more confusion will be created. The decision in Okafor vs. Nweke is not in any respect wrong in law and I cannot surmise a real likelihood of injustice perpetrated. I cannot trace the issue to the domain of public policy. The convenience of counsel should have no pre-eminence over the dictate of law. The law as enacted should be followed. I do not for one moment see any valid reason why the decision of this Court in Okafor vs. Nweke should be revisited. It has come to stay and legal Practitioners should reframe their minds to live by it for due accountability and responsibility on their part and for the due protection of our profession.
The last point relates to balance of justice which most of the learned senior counsel/counsel touched upon. The question arises as to whether it does not lead to injustice against the litigant to declare processes filed by his counsel incompetent on the ground that such a process was signed and filed in the name of a law firm without indicating the name of the particular legal practitioner who issued and signed the process. Most counsel felt that there should be a saving grace.
In Okafor vs. Nweke (supra) this Court per Onnoghen, JSC stated as follows at pages 532- 533:
“On the other side of the judicial scale in the balancing act, is the issue of substantial justice which I said had been adequately taken into consideration in this ruling. The conclusion that must be reached in this matter is that the documents are incompetent and are struck out leaving the applicants with the opportunity to present a proper application for the consideration by this Court. The effect of ruling is not to shut out the applicants but to put the house of the legal profession in order by sending the necessary and right message to members that the urge to do substantial justice does not include illegality or encouragement of the attitude of ‘anything goes’.”
It follows that no injustice is done to the litigant since the result of the irregularity is an order striking out the suit or process which leaves the real legal practitioner with an opportunity to come back to court to lift his veil and file a proper process as the legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of this court. The court should consider such an application on its merits. Such will enhance a good practice culture amongst legal practitioners generally. I earnestly feel that I have made a point.”
Further, in Alawiye vs. Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 570 at 581 to 584, Chukwuma-Eneh, J.S.C held that:
“A law Firm is not a legal person and so cannot under the Legal Practitioners Act sign and issue legal processes being a non-cognizable person under the Act. A legal process signed and issued by a law firm is incompetent and is liable to be set aside. Processes must be signed and issued by a person as enrolled to practice law in Nigeria under the Legal Practitioners Act. Anything short of signing and authenticating legal processes in that manner is unacceptable. In the instant case, the Writ of Summons, the statement of claim and the notice of cross-appeal signed and issued in the name of “Chief Afe Babalola, SAN & Co.” were nullities and void ab initio. The law firm is not a Legal Practitioner known to law. Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Part 1043 page 521; SLB Consortium Ltd. Vs. N.N.P.C (2011) 9 NWLR Part 1252 page 317 referred to page 611 – 612 paragraphs G-H; page 617 paragraphs E – G.
All processes filed in Court are to be signed as follows:
(a) The signature of Counsel, which may be any contraption;
(b) The name of Counsel clearly written;
(c) The party Counsel represents;
(d) Name and address of Law Firm.
Once who signed the process cannot be ascertained, it is incurably bad and the rules of Court that seem to provide for a remedy are of no use as a rule cannot override the Legal Practitioners Act. There must be strict compliance with the law. SLB Consortium Ltd. vs. N.N.P.C (2011) 9 NWLR Part 1252 page 317 page 617 – 618, paragraphs H-C.
By virtue of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. 111, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, subject to the provisions of the Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll. In the con, unless the con otherwise requires, “Legal Practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of the Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings. Page 619, paragraphs B-D.” (underlined for emphasis)
Furthermore, in Okarika vs. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR Part 1352 page 19 at page 24, I.T. Muhammad, J.S.C. opined thus:
“A notice of appeal not signed by an appellant or the counsel is invalid as there is no stamp of authority or authentication. Page 37 paragraph C per I.T. Muhammad, J.S.C. at page 37 paragraphs D-E:
“Although, nowhere in Order 8 of the Supreme Court Rules is it provided that an Appellant or his Legal Practitioner must sign the notice of appeal as Order 6 rule 2(4) of the Rules of the Court below have provided, it would be wild and callous to suggest, as the learned Counsel for the Appellant did, that “any signature appended on a notice of appeal ” (although a mere surplusage will suffice”.
It is improper, where a law firm is consulted by an individual for legal services, to indicate on the initiating process that such a process is signed by the law firm. The law firm is incapable of signing the process. It is incapable of pursuing the appeal to its logical conclusion, as it lacks these human qualities. It has to act through natural persons or human beings.
Once an initiating process, be it Writ of Summons or notice of Appeal is not signed or authenticated either by the litigating party or the legal practitioner on his behalf, then the process is invalid and the jurisdiction of the Court ousted. The defect is taken as incurable and the process signed in the name of the legal firm would not suffice. In the instant case, the notice of appeal, not having been signed by a human person, where as appellant or Legal Practitioner, was invalid; the implication of which was that there was no appeal.” (underlined for emphasis)
I believe the aforementioned cases had satisfied the Respondent’s Counsel’s curiosity as to the notion of the law on this all important issue. The implications of the first issue are so clear, and far-reaching, therefore, based on that issue alone, this appeal is bound to succeed.
The Respondent’s Statement of Claim which superseded his Writ of Summons, is a very vital process and, therefore, must be authored and signed by the Plaintiff himself or by his Legal Practitioner or a person known to law by virtue of the Legal Practitioners Act. The Writ of Summons was also signed by “pp: Steve Adehi & Co.”
Following my opinion on issue No. 1, it is clear that the proceedings conducted at the lower Court on an originating process that was not signed by any Legal Practitioner known to Law and the Statement of Claim authenticated by the Law Firm, “Steve Adehi & Co,” are copiously incompetent and ought to be set aside. The issue whether the process was subsequently corrected is immaterial since the law is that no amendment can resurrect an incurably defective process. In consequence thereto, the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim filed by the Respondent at the lower Court which were not signed by any legal Practitioner, but by a Law Firm, i.e. “Steve Adehi & Co.”, will be and is hereby struck out.
ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered by her lordship T.N.ORJI-ABADUA JCA, and I agree with her reasoning that because the originating process of the Respondent’s case was not signed by a person known to law, but purportedly by a law firm, the same was incompetent. The appeal is therefore meritorious and is allowed. I hereby set aside the decision of the trial Court in the suit No. K/131/2004, and strike out the claim of the Respondent.
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua, JCA. His Lordship has ably resolved the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide with the conclusions reached therein.
The statement of claim of the Respondent, as plaintiff, before the lower Court and on the strength of which the entire trial in the case was conducted was signed by the law firm of Steve Adehi & Co on behalf of the Respondent. Counsel to the Appellant urged this Court to hold that the statement of claim was a nullity and void ab initio having not been signed by a person registered as a legal practitioner in Nigeria who was registered to practice as such under the provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004. Counsel to the Respondent argued otherwise saying that the issue was a mere technicality aimed at scuttling the ends of justice and to disenfranchise the Respondent because any attempt to re-litigate the matter would be caught by the statute of limitation.
The position of the law on this subject is no longer debatable and it is, as established by a long line of Supreme Court decisions, that a court process so signed by a law firm is a nullity and it is void ab initio and being a statement of claim, it cannot sustain a cause of action and a judgment predicated on such a process must be set aside. It is a requirement of substantive law, and not of procedural law, and thus it cannot be waived and it is irrelevant that the party complaining did not show that it suffered a miscarriage of justice or prejudice by such signing of the court process and it is an issue that can be raised even at the Supreme Court for the first time – Okafor Vs Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt 1043) 521, Oketade Vs Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt 1195) 63, SLB Consortium Ltd Vs NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt 1252) 317, Braithwaite Vs Skye Bank Plc (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1, First Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Maiwada & Ors (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt 1346) 444, Alawiye Vs Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt 1348) 570, Minister of Works and Transport, Adamawa State Vs Yakubu (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt 1351) 481, and Okarika Vs Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt 1352) 19. The entire submissions of the Counsel to the Respondent on the issue were thus totally misconceived.
Perhaps if Counsel to the Respondent had been a bit more circumspect and had taken advantage of the decision of the Supreme Court in Unity Bank Plc Vs Denclag Ltd (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt 1332) 293 to the effect that such a process can be rectified and amended and also of the long line of decisions such as Amadi Vs Thomas Aplin & Co Ltd (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt 1) 409, Okafor Vs Ikeanyi (1979) 3 & 4 SC 99 and Bankole Vs Dada (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt 830) 174, that say that pleadings of parties can be amended, even at the appellate Coutt, if it can be done without injustice to the other side, maybe the statement of claim of the Respondent could have been rescued and saved. Counsel did not do so and the statement of claim of the Respondent being a nullity and void ab initio is hereby struck out. The concomitant effect of this is that the entire evidence led by the Respondent in proof of the averments contained in the defective statement of claim went to no issue and the judgment predicated on the statement of claim is liable to be set aside. This point was made by this Court in its unreported decision in Suit No CA/K/35/2009 – Ali Rudman Vs Olude Stores delivered on the 12th of July, 2013.
It is for this reason, and the fuller exposition of the law on the subject made in the lead judgment, that I too find merit in this appeal. I hereby set aside the judgment of the Kano State High Court in Suit No K/131/2004 delivered by Honorable Justice N S Umar on the 3rd of March, 2011.
Appearances
J.M.M. Majiyagbe Esq;For Appellant
AND
Steve Adehi Esq;For Respondent
