ANYAEJI MARY ANDREW v. MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
(2016)LCN/8349(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 22nd day of March, 2016
CA/IL/107/2015
RATIO
DAMAGES: GENERAL DAMAGES; CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH GENERAL DAMAGES ARE AWARDED
I would start with circumstances under which general damages are awarded. It may be awarded to assuage such a loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act. PER. CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
DAMAGES: GENERAL DAMAGES; WHETHER GENERAL DAMAGES NEEDS TO BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED AND PROVED
In my considered view, the law is that general damages need not be specifically pleaded to talk of proof. It arises from the inference of law and need not be proved by evidence. It suffices if it is generally averred. Its award is presumed by law to be the direct and probable consequence or result of the act complained of. This can be distinguished from general damages in that it is generally incapable of substantially exact computation or calculation. See, ADEKUNLE v. ROCKVIEW HOTEL (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 853) AT 161; OLUIGBO v. UMEH (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 870) 621 AT 647 PARAS D-E, GARI v. SEIRAFINA NIG. LTD. (2007) LPELR-8397(CA), INCAR v. BENSON (1975) 3 S.C. 117, ODULAJA v. HADDAD (1973) 11 S.C. 375 AND IN OSUJI & ANOR v. ISIOCHA (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623 AT 636; SCNJ (Pt. 11) 227 AT P.236 his Lordship, Uwais (JSC) (as he then was) made the following observation:
“… the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded or proved, for it is the loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act and it is generally presumed by law. The manner, therefore, in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man.”
See, also U.B.N. PLC v. IKWEN (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 648) 223 AT 236 – 237. PER. CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
DAMAGES: SPECIAL DAMAGES; THE NATURE OF SPECIAL DAMAGES
Special damages on the other hand are such damages the law will not infer from the nature of the act complained of. Contrary to the argument of the learned Counsel to the Respondent, general damages as claimed by the appellant for the loss and injury he incurred by the Respondent not releasing the information required, to enable the Police investigate his complaint through his letter of request, Exhibit 4, are claims made at large, as highlighted above, it is quantified according to the opinion of the reasonable person. It is considered adequate loss or inconvenience which flows naturally from the defendant’s act. It is presumed by law. It is not dependent upon calculation and figures from specific items that need to be proved. See, ODULAJA v. HADDAD (SUPRA), LAW v. STIRLING ASTALDI LTD. (1977) 11-12 S.C. 53, and OSUJI v. ISIOCHA (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623. PER. CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
DAMAGES: SPECIAL DAMAGES; WHETHER SPECIAL DAMAGES NEEDS TO BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED AND PROVED
Special damages are such that the law will not infer from the nature of the act complained of, they must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, in this case all the losses claimed on every item must be concrete in terms and value before trial. They do not flow in the ordinary course. See, GAMBORUMA v. BORNO (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 495) 530 AT 545 IJEBU-ODE L.G. v. ADEDEJI BALOGUN & CO. LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 135; MOMODU v. UNIVERSITY OF BENIN (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 325. ORIENT BANK (NIG.) PLC v. BILANTE INTERNATIONAL LTD (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 37; ADODO v. ISMAILA (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 573) 214 AND UZOECHI v. ALINNOR (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 696) 203 AT 214. In CHINDA v. AMADI (2002) 7 NWLR (767) 505 AT 524. His Lordship, Nsofor, JCA summed it up thus:
“Now, general damages are awarded for general damage and special damages are awarded for special damage.” PER. CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
APPEAL: SITUATIONS WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE AWARD OF DAMAGES
The award of general damages is ordinarily within the realm of the trial Court but, there are situations when an appellate Court would interfere with the award of damages, in this case its non award of general damages. The exceptions are where:
(a) The trial Court has acted under a mistake of law;
(b) The trial Court has acted in disregard of known principle or acted on no principles at all;
(c) The trial Court has acted under a misapprehension of facts;
(d) The trial Court has taken into account irrelevant matters or failed to take account of relevant matters;
(e) Injustice would result if the appeal Court does not interfere; or
(f) The amount awarded by the trial Court is either ridiculously low or ridiculously high that it must have been a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.
See, ADEKUNLE v. ROCKVIEW HOTEL LTD (SUPRA), UBN LTD v. ODUSOTE BOOK STORES LTD (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 421) 558; SPDC (NIG.) LTD v. TIEBO VII (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 657 ALLIED BANK v. AKUBUEZE (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 374; and ONWU v. NKA (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 458) 1. PER. CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ANYAEJI MARY ANDREW Appellant(s)
AND
MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Respondent(s)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the Judgment of the Kwara State High Court, Ilorin Judicial Division, presided over by M. Abdulgafar, J. delivered on 19th March, 2014.
Judgment was given in favour of the Appellant but the trial Court refused to award general damages to the Appellant for the reason that the Appellant did not prove his entitlement to same.
The Appellant aggrieved by that part of the judgment appealed against same to this Court raising three (3) grounds of appeal, pages 145-147 of the printed records.
As the claimant at the trial Court, Paragraph 31 of his amended statement of claim, pages 43-48 of the printed records, the appellant claimed against the Respondent (as defendant) as follows:
“1. A Declaration that the Defendant is under obligation to disclose and/or furnish the police with necessary information to aid her investigation of the claimant’s complaint.
2. A Declaration that the Defendant’s refusal and/or neglect to disclose and/or furnish the police with the necessary information to aid the investigation of the Claimant’s complain has
1
hindered the said police investigation and occasioned loss and injury to the Claimant.
3. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant to disclose and/or furnish the police with necessary information to aid the investigation of the Claimant’s complaints.
4. The sum of N20,000.000 (Twenty Million Naira) only as general damages for the shame, bad social reputation, shock, public ridicule, family disharmony and psychological trauma suffered by the Claimant as a result of the Defendant’s refusal and/or neglect to disclose and/or furnish necessary information to aid investigation.
5. Cost of filing and prosecuting this suit.”
The background facts are that the Appellant (from his Amended Statement of Claim) was a subscriber to the Respondent’s network service and was issued with a line sometime in 2005. It was alleged that sometime in 2007, the appellant’s telephone became faulty and he removed the sim card pending when he would replace his telephone. When the Appellant replaced his telephone in 2008 he was unable to activate his line. He could not make calls or receive any. The situation was reported to the MTN connect office in Ilorin (along Ahmadu
2
Bello Way, GRA, Ilorin) where he was told that the line had been blocked for not having been in use for long. The Appellant subscribed to another line. He made out that some of his family members and friends had his previous number and were not aware that he had stopped using it.
Sometime in 2009, the Appellant alleged that someone impersonated him using the previous number to demand money and air time from his friends and family members. The Appellant reported the matter to the police upon which a letter was written by the police and said to have been served on the Respondent. The Respondent was requested in the letter to make available information relating to the identity of the person using the Appellant’s old line. The Respondent denied receiving the letter.
He approached the trial Court, prayed amongst other things for an order of the Court compelling the Respondent to release the information required and general damages for the failure of the Respondent to release the required information.
In its judgment the trial Court granted an Order compelling the Respondent to release the information but, did not grant any damages on the
3
ground that the Appellant failed to establish that he suffered any injury that would warrant a grant of general damages.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the findings and conclusion of the trial Court as to the issue of general damages, appealed to this Court on three grounds of appeal. From the grounds of appeal, the Appellant identified three issues for determination.
These are:
“i. Whether the Appellant has a duty to prove his entitlement to general damages.
ii. Whether the trial Court was right to have relied on irrelevant issues to refuse the Appellant any award of general damages.
iii. Whether this Honourable Court has power to intervene and award general damages to the Appellant in the circumstances to this appeal.”
The Respondent on its part formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal as follows:
“Whether considering the facts and the law applicable to the circumstance of this case, the trial Court was not right when it refused to grant general damages in favour of the appellant.”
When the appeal was called up for hearing, Joseph Oboite, Esq. who signed the counsel’s list as
4
representing the Appellant had left the Court without any excuse. The Appellant’s brief of argument filed on 23/12/15 and his reply brief filed on 1/2/16 were deemed as argued on application by the Learned Counsel to the Respondent.
In the Appellant’s brief of argument, settled by S. A. Bamidele, Esq. in respect of his first issue, it was submitted that the Appellant had no duty to prove his entitlement to general damages. It was submitted that the trial Court does not have the discretion as to whether or not to award general damages to the Appellant in the present circumstances of this case. It was argued that the trial Court could only have discretion as to the quantum of general damages to be awarded to the Appellant. Also, that having held that the appellant’s case has merit and consequently granted his reliefs could no longer under the law refrain from awarding general damages to the Appellant. Further, that the law presumes general damages to flow from the wrong complained about and reiterated that general damages need not be proved, the averment of same was argued, to be enough. See, FEDERAL MORTGAGE FINANCE LTD v. EKPO (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 248)
5
1667 AT 1691, PARAS. E – G.
It was contended that the appellant having succeeded in his case is entitled to general damages. The learned Counsel faulted the non-award of same and denial of costs. See, also OZORO v. ENEH (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 204) 929 AT 939, PARAGRAPH E.
The appellant’s second and third issues were argued together. The Learned Counsel made out that the trial Court relied on irrelevant issues to refuse the award of general damages, we were urged to intervene and award the general damages sought.
The reasons given by the trial Court were reviewed at page 142, lines 15-23 of the printed records. The trial Court holding that it did not believe the evidence of the PW2 and PW3 was faulted by the Learned Counsel to the Appellant to the effect that the evidence of these two witnesses had nothing to do with general damages but rather to support the Appellant’s pleading that unknown persons were using his sim card and/or line to impersonate him.
It was further argued that the Respondent did not controvert Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Appellant’s amended statement of claim which dealt with the issue of award of damages.
6
Also, that the Respondent did not deny the Appellant’s pleadings concerning general damages and did not deny that the Appellant suffered any injury as asserted by the Appellant in Paragraph 30 above.
The Learned Counsel agreed that the award of general damages is at the realm of the trial Court, we were urged to intervene and award the general damages sought in this case, reliance was placed on FEDERAL MORTGAGE FINANCE v. EKPO (SUPRA) AT 162, PARAS A-D. We were urged to resolve all the issues in favour of the Appellant and award general damages in the interest of justice.
In response, the Learned Counsel to the Respondent I. O. Atofarati, Esq. appearing with D. A. Ijaodola, Esq.; D. Y. Awogbade (Miss); I. R. Oderinde (Miss) and O. A. Johnson (Miss) in arguing his sole issue contended that the Appellant’s claim is founded on the tort of negligence on the part of the Respondent for the alleged failure to make available to the police, information to enable the police investigate the impersonator of the Appellant. It was argued that failure of the Respondent to release the necessary information is a breach of the duty of care owed the appellant;
7
See, LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. BALLANYNE (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1336) PAGE 527 AT 543. It was argued that the appellant’s case centred on the tort relating to negligence.
The Learned Respondent’s Counsel gave the ingredients that must be established for a claim founded on negligence to succeed. It was argued that without proof of any damage suffered by the appellant, he could not succeed with the claim for award of general damages, a claim in the tort of negligence being an exception where damages must be specifically proved. See, A.M. CO. (NIG.) LTD v. VOLKSWAGEN (NIG.) LTD (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1192) PAGE 97 AT 118. It was argued that the case of FEDERAL MORTGAGE FINANCE LIMITED v. EKPO (SUPRA) did not apply to the present case. The case of OZOR v. ENEH (supra) was distinguished from the present case.
It was further argued that the Appellant did not appeal against the finding of the trial Court that the evidence the Appellant relied upon to prove that he suffered injury as a result of the Respondent’s refusal to accede to the request of the police in Exhibit 4 through the evidence of the PW2 and PW3 which the trial Court did not believe as the
8
truth.
It was concluded that there was no evidence that the Appellant suffered any shame, bad social reputation, shock, public ridicule, family disharmony and psychological trauma after the alleged service of Exhibit 4 on the respondent, the letter requesting for the release of the information concerning the impersonator.
In the Appellant’s reply brief it was argued that the Respondent made out a different case for the Appellant, that of negligence as opposed to the appellant’s case in the trial Court against the Respondent which was simply the Respondent’s willful refusal to furnish the police with the required information needed to investigate a criminal complaint made to the police by the Appellant, which refusal has led to the continuous psychological loss suffered by the Appellant. It was argued that this had nothing to do with any duty of care owed the Appellant by the Respondent to protect him against the impersonator. The Respondent was said not to have denied the reliefs sought by the Appellant in Paragraph 30 of the amended statement of claim before the trial Court. We were urged to allow the appeal.
?I have examined the issues
9
raised by the parties and would adopt the sole issue raised by the Respondent as it encompasses the three raised by the appellant and would recap it as follows:
Was the trial Court right to have refused to grant the appellant the general damages sought in the circumstances of this case?
I would start with circumstances under which general damages are awarded. It may be awarded to assuage such a loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act. In this case the respondent’s refusal to disclose and/or furnish the Police with necessary information to aid her investigation of the claimant’s complaint. Further, it was made out that the refusal hindered the Police investigation and occasioned loss and injury to the claimant. The claimant sought from the trial Court that the respondent be mandated to disclose and/or furnish the Police with the necessary information to aid in the investigation of the claimant’s complaint. The claimant claimed the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) general damages for all that he suffered as a result of the refusal to release the information to the Police by the Respondent.
?The learned trial Judge
10
granted the reliefs sought by the appellant in his reliefs 1 and 2 but, further held that the claimant did not prove that he had occasioned any loss and injury by the act of the respondent and did not grant the general damages sought. At page 142 of the printed records of appeal, the learned trial Judge held thus:
“I find as a fact that the defendant was served Exhibit 4 in respect of the claimant’s complaint.
On the question whether the defendant has an obligation to accede to the request of the police, I think the contention of Mr. Oboite that the claimant has established this aspect of the case both through the pleadings of the defendant in Paragraph 9 and 15 of the statement of defence and Exhibit is unassailable.
I therefore hold that the defendant do indeed have an obligation to respond to Exhibit 4”
Further, at page 143 of the printed records held thus:
“In the light of the forgoing, I find for the claimant and make the following orders:
1. A declaration that the defendant is under obligation to furnish the Police the information to aid the investigation of the claimant’s complaint.
2. An Order directing the
11
defendant to furnish the police with the information to aid the investigation of the claimant’s complaint.”
The learned Counsel to the Respondent had argued in line with the view of the trial Court that the loss and injury to the claimant by the act of the respondent needed to be specifically proved by the appellant for him to be entitled to general damages as claimed. In my considered view, the law is that general damages need not be specifically pleaded to talk of proof. It arises from the inference of law and need not be proved by evidence. It suffices if it is generally averred. Its award is presumed by law to be the direct and probable consequence or result of the act complained of. This can be distinguished from general damages in that it is generally incapable of substantially exact computation or calculation. See, ADEKUNLE v. ROCKVIEW HOTEL (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 853) AT 161; OLUIGBO v. UMEH (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 870) 621 AT 647 PARAS D-E, GARI v. SEIRAFINA NIG. LTD. (2007) LPELR-8397(CA), INCAR v. BENSON (1975) 3 S.C. 117, ODULAJA v. HADDAD (1973) 11 S.C. 375 AND IN OSUJI & ANOR v. ISIOCHA (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623 AT 636; SCNJ (Pt. 11) 227 AT
12
P.236 his Lordship, Uwais (JSC) (as he then was) made the following observation:
“… the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded or proved, for it is the loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act and it is generally presumed by law. The manner, therefore, in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man.”
See, also U.B.N. PLC v. IKWEN (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 648) 223 AT 236 – 237.
Special damages on the other hand are such damages the law will not infer from the nature of the act complained of. Contrary to the argument of the learned Counsel to the Respondent, general damages as claimed by the appellant for the loss and injury he incurred by the Respondent not releasing the information required, to enable the Police investigate his complaint through his letter of request, Exhibit 4, are claims made at large, as highlighted above, it is quantified according to the opinion of the reasonable person. It is considered adequate loss or inconvenience which flows naturally from the defendant’s act. It is presumed by law. It is not dependent upon calculation and
13
figures from specific items that need to be proved. See, ODULAJA v. HADDAD (SUPRA), LAW v. STIRLING ASTALDI LTD. (1977) 11-12 S.C. 53, and OSUJI v. ISIOCHA (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623.
In my view, the conclusion of the learned trial Judge which supports a claim for special damages, which also is in line with the argument of the learned Counsel to the Respondent is erroneous.
At page 143 of the printed records the trial Court held as follows:
“I do not therefore find the claim of the claimant that he suffered shame, shock and psychological trauma credible.
There is consequently no basis to award the claimant general damages in this as he has not proved any”.
The above holding is contradictory to the trial Court granting the reliefs sought as follows, at page 144 of the printed records thus:
”1. A declaration that the defendant is under obligation to furnish the Police the information to aid the investigation of the claimant’s complaint.
2. An Order directing the defendant to furnish the Police with the information to aid the investigation of the claimant’s complaint.”
?Special damages are such that the law will
14
not infer from the nature of the act complained of, they must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, in this case all the losses claimed on every item must be concrete in terms and value before trial. They do not flow in the ordinary course. See, GAMBORUMA v. BORNO (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 495) 530 AT 545 IJEBU-ODE L.G. v. ADEDEJI BALOGUN & CO. LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 135; MOMODU v. UNIVERSITY OF BENIN (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 325. ORIENT BANK (NIG.) PLC v. BILANTE INTERNATIONAL LTD (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 37; ADODO v. ISMAILA (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 573) 214 AND UZOECHI v. ALINNOR (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 696) 203 AT 214. In CHINDA v. AMADI (2002) 7 NWLR (767) 505 AT 524. His Lordship, Nsofor, JCA summed it up thus:
“Now, general damages are awarded for general damage and special damages are awarded for special damage.”
From the pleadings and the evidence led by the appellant, he did not make out a case or claim special damages.
?The learned trial Judge attributed the evidence of the PW2 and PW3 as what the appellant relied upon to prove his entitlement to general damages as a result of what he suffered by the act of the respondent and
15
found their testimony incredible. This is erroneous. The evidence of the PW2 and PW3 at pages 123-125 of the printed records in my humble view was to substantiate the appellant’s claim in order to succeed in his case, which he indeed succeeded to prove his claim, which the trial Court found to be meritorious (at page 143 of the printed records) and granted his reliefs. See, AJIGBOTOSHO v. REYNOIDS CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD (2008), CA LPELR 3716.
The appellant’s claim in his fourth relief is specific, he claimed for “general damages”. The learned Counsel to the Respondent dwelt on and made out a case of negligence for the appellant, arguing that the Respondent owed the appellant a duty of care to release the necessary information that would help the Police investigate his complaint, failure of which amounted to a breach of the said duty of care, which needed proof to entitle the appellant to the damages sought. I have examined the pleadings of the appellant and evidence in their support, as well as the reliefs sought, especially Paragraphs 30 and 31. On the face of the claim, there is nothing that connoted duty of care owed the appellant by the Respondent
16
or Negligence. The learned trial judge found for the appellant and made declarations granting the reliefs sought except for the general damages, the Respondent did not appeal against the trial Court’s findings in favour of the claimant.
The award of the general damages sought is a natural consequence of the claimant having succeeded in his claim and ought to have been awarded by the trial Court, which had no discretion to exercise in this case looking at the reasons for its refusal (the Court’s discretion would be as to the amount awarded). The award flows from the non action on Exhibit 4 to enable the Police investigate the appellant’s complaint that an unknown person was using his former mobile number to call friends and relations making demands from them, which presented him in bad light to his friends, relations and general public. The learned trial Judge was wrong to have held that there was no basis to award the claimant general damages as he did not prove any.
?The award of general damages is ordinarily within the realm of the trial Court but, there are situations when an appellate Court would interfere with the award of damages, in this
17
case its non award of general damages. The exceptions are where:
(a) The trial Court has acted under a mistake of law;
(b) The trial Court has acted in disregard of known principle or acted on no principles at all;
(c) The trial Court has acted under a misapprehension of facts;
(d) The trial Court has taken into account irrelevant matters or failed to take account of relevant matters;
(e) Injustice would result if the appeal Court does not interfere; or
(f) The amount awarded by the trial Court is either ridiculously low or ridiculously high that it must have been a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.
See, ADEKUNLE v. ROCKVIEW HOTEL LTD (SUPRA), UBN LTD v. ODUSOTE BOOK STORES LTD (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 421) 558; SPDC (NIG.) LTD v. TIEBO VII (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 657 ALLIED BANK v. AKUBUEZE (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 374; and ONWU v. NKA (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 458) 1.
?In the present case, I am of the considered view that the trial Court having granted the reliefs sought by the claimant, the natural flow of events or consequence was to grant the general damages sought, at its discretion in respect of quantum, not a total
18
denial of same on the alleged basis of not proving his entitlement to same through evidence.
In the final analysis, I am of the view that the appeal is meritorious, I allow same. I set aside the aspect of the trial Court’s judgment where it was held that the claimant did not suffer shame, shock, psychological trauma and that there was no basis to award the claimant general damages as he did not prove any, moreso, having granted the claimant’s reliefs one and three. The claimant’s relief 4 in his Amended statement of claim is granted but, modified by a reduction in the amount claimed, that is, N5,000.000.00 (Five Million Naira) general damages for the reasons enumerated therein.
I award costs of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) to the Appellant.
MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.: This Appeal is meritorious and for the reasons clearly set out in the lead judgment of my learned brother, CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JCA. I also allow it with N100,000.00 as costs to the Appellant.
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the judgment delivered by my learned brother CHIDI
19
NWAOMA UWA, JCA. I totally agree with my Lord that the appeal is meritorious and to that extent allow same. I also set aside part of the trial Court’s judgment as contained in the lead judgment.
?I abide by the consequential order as to costs.
20
Appearances
Joseph Oboite signed the Counsel list but absentFor Appellant
AND
I. O. Atofarati, Esq. with him, D. A. Ijalaye, Esq., D. Y. Awogbade (Miss) and I. R. Oderinde (Miss)For Respondent
