CONFIDENCE BUREAU DE CHANGE v. FRANCIS IKEMEFUNA NDEANEFO (2016)

CONFIDENCE BUREAU DE CHANGE v. FRANCIS IKEMEFUNA NDEANEFO

(2016)LCN/8539(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 29th day of April, 2016

CA/E/33/2013

RATIO

WORDS AND PHRASES: MEANING OF NET PROFIT
I agree with the definition of the term ‘net profit’ by Learned Counsel for the respondent. He adopted the definition of the term in Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1329 as follows- “Total sales revenue less the cost of the goods sold and all additional expenses – also termed net revenue.” Simply Put, net profit is profit after deduction of total costs from gross or total profit. PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.
WORDS AND PHRASES: MEANING OF PAPER PROFIT
I agree with the submission of Learned Counsel for the respondent that the net profit “that shall have accrued to” it during the period it was out of business due to the embargo, amounts to paper profit which is defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at P. 1329 as “A profit that is anticipated but not yet realized. Gains from stock holding, for example, are paper profits unit the stock is actually sold at a price higher than its original purchase price – Also termed unrealized profit.” PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.
DAMAGES: SPECIAL DAMAGES; HOW SHOULD SPECIAL DAMAGES BE PLEADED
It is settled by a long line of judicial authorities to the point that it is now trite that a claim for an amount of money as actual or anticipated profit lost is a claim for a specie or type of special damages. See A-G Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels (No 2) (1989)12 SC (Pt 1) 1, Odumosu v. ACB Ltd (1976) 11 SC 55, Dumez Nig. Ltd v. Ogboli (supra) West African Shipping Agency Nig. Ltd v. Kalla (1978) 3 SC 21, Ijebu Ode Local Government v. Adedeji Balogun & Co. (1991)1 NWLR (Pt 166) 136 and UBA PLC v. BTL Ind. Ltd (2006)19 NWLR (Pt.1013) 61, Fidelity Bank PLC v. Kates Associated Industries Ltd (2012) LPELR- 97090 (CA) and NMA V. Marine Management Associates Inc & Anor (2008) LPELR – 4583 (CA).
As a claim for special damages, the facts that make the case for it must be specially and specifically pleaded. See A-G Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels (No 2) (supra), Fidelity Bank PLC v. Kates Association Industries Ltd (supra) and NMA v. Marine v. Management Associates Inc & Anor (supra). To satisfy this requirement, the pleading must contain facts that show the exact amount lost or to be lost as net profits and why the amount is net profit. To achieve these, the facts must contain the particulars of the gross or total profit, the particulars of the total costs and show that if the total cost is deducted from the total or gross profit, the net profit would be exact amount claimed. Where the claim is for loss of anticipated profit as in this case the facts must also show the certainty of the occurrence of the loss of the exact amount claimed as net profit. PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.
APPEAL: AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES; INSTANCES AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE AWARD OF DAMAGES MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT
The award of general damages is a matter within the discretionary Jurisdiction of the trial Court, which discretion it must exercise Judicially and Judiciously. See Okwejiminor v Gbakeji & Anor (2008) 1Â SC (Pt.111) 263. Being a discretion primarily belonging to the trial Court, an appellate Court must be circumspect in accepting an invitation to interfere with the amount awarded by the trial Court as general damages. As held by the Supreme Court in Oduwole & Ors v. West (2010) LPELR – 2263 (SC) “as a matter of general principle; an appellate Court would not interfere with an award of damages by a trial Court simply because faced with a similar situation and circumstances it would have awarded a different amount. An appeal Court will however interfere with an award by a trial Court where it is clearly shown:
(a) That the trial Court acted upon wrong principle of law, or
(b) That the amount awarded by the trial Court is ridiculously too high or too low
(c) That the amount was an entirely erroneous and unreasonable estimate having regard to the circumstances of the case”. See also Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co. Ltd v ACB Ltd (2004) 1 SC (Pt.1) 32. PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

CONFIDENCE BUREAU DE CHANGE – Appellant(s)

AND

FRANCIS IKEMEFUNA NDEANEFO – Respondent(s)

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On 16-2-2007, a writ of summons was issued at the instance of the appellant herein, as plaintiff, commencing suit No. O/23/2007 in the Anambra State High Court in Onitsha Judicial Division against the respondent herein as defendant.

The case was tried on the basis of the following pleadings, namely Amended Statement of claim, Amended Statement of defence and reply to statement of defence. Each pleading was accompanied by written depositions of witnesses, list of witnesses, list of documents and documents to be relied on at the trial.

The plaintiff claimed for;
a. an order that the defendant shall indemnify the plaintiff of all the net profit of N2, 786,000 that shall have accrued to the plaintiff monthly from November, 2006 until the embargo is lifted by the (C.B.N.) Central Bank of Nigeria.
b. A written apology to the plaintiff and copied to C.B.N, N.D.L.E.A, and E.F.C.C. & ABCON.
c. N1,000,000.00 as special and general damages”.

The plaintiff adduced evidence in support of its case through one witness, PW1. The defendant also adduced evidence in defence

through one witness, DW1.

After the close of address by both parties, the trial Court rendered its judgment on 25-9-2012 granting the plaintiff reliefs in the following terms:
1. “the defendant has to write a written apology to the plaintiff.
2. N500,000.00 (five hundred thousand naira) general damages is awarded against the defendant assess costs of this case at N50,000.00 against the defendant.

It held that the plaintiff’s claim for loss of monthly net profit of N2,786,000.00 failed.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the plaintiff on 21-11-2012 commenced this appeal No CA/E/33/2013 in this Court by filing a notice of appeal containing four grounds of appeal.

Both sides have filed exchanged and adopted their respective briefs, namely, appellant’s brief, respondent’s brief and appellant’s reply brief.

The appellant’s brief raised the following issues for determination:
1. “Whether the trial Court was correct when it held that the appellant did not give particulars and strictly prove special damages the appellant sought at the trial Court. (Grounds A and B of the notice and Grounds of Appeal).
2. Considering the

circumstances of the suit, whether the general damages of N500,000.00 granted by the trial Court was manifestly too low. (Grounds C and D of the notice and Ground of appeal).”

The respondent adopted the above issues for determination framed in the appellant’s brief.

I will determine this appeal on the basis of the issues for determination in the appellant’s brief.
Let me start with issue No. 1.

In arguing this issue, Learned Counsel for the appellant reproduced the portion of the judgment complained against under this issue. The said portion reads thusly-
“There is no doubt that the plaintiff incurred some losses. It would appear that the said loss of N2,786,000.00 is a special damage. The position of law is that for the plaintiff to succeed in such a claim, it must be strictly proved and particulars must be given too. It is not for the Court to assume particulars of the special damage and make its estimate.
What this means is that the plaintiff must strictly show that he indeed suffered such special damage as claimed by credible evidence of such a character as would satisfy the Court she is entitled to the award under the very head.

See Shell Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Chief G.B.A. Tiebo VII & Ors (2005) 9 NWLR Pt. 931 P.439 at 445 446.
As a matter of fact the strict and special proof at times require documentary evidence such as production of receipts or credible records depending on the nature of the case.
See Dumez Nig Ltd vs Patrick Wada Ogboli (1977) 2 SC p.45.
There is no concrete evidence before the Court supporting the loss of N2,786.000.00 monthly by the plaintiff. There is no book of Account or ledger of the plaintiff tendered in evidence to ascertain this special monthly loss of the plaintiff.
On a careful review of the evidence before me, the monthly loss of N2,786,000.00Â by the plaintiff has not been succinctly established. The plaintiff’s claim of N2,786..000.00 per month from November 2006 to January, 2010 therefore fails and I so hold.”

Against this part of the judgment of the trial Court, Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that it pleaded special damages and led evidence which was sufficient to persuade the trial Court to grant the special damages which the appellant sought at the Lower Court and that the type of special damages the appellant

sought at the Lower Court was for loss of profit. Learned Counsel emphasized that the said loss of profit is that which could have accrued to the appellant from 2006 to 2010 when the operational license of the appellant was withdrawn by Central Bank of Nigeria at the instance of the agents of the respondent who acted in the course of their employment by the respondent, that the amount sought as loss of profit was pleaded and proved by evidence, that the time appellant was out of business and period when the profit ought to have accrued to the appellant was equally pleaded and proved in evidence. Learned Counsel also submitted that the trial Court was wrong to have relied onDumez Nig Ltd v. Ogboli (1977) 2 SC 45 to hold that strict and special proof require documentary evidence such as production of receipts or credible records, that the Supreme Court in Dumez’s case did not consider whether documentary evidence such as production of receipts or credible records would be required to prove special damages, that the Supreme Court in SPDC Nig Ltd v. Tiebo & Ors (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 931) 445 held that it is not in all cases that receipts or documents are required

to prove special damages. For these submissions Learned Counsel also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 216 Reprint and the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Boshali v. ACE Ltd (1961) 4 All NLR 197 at 220 and 221.

Learned counsel then urged this Court to hold that the respondent who caused the appellant to stay out of business for four years from 2006 to 2010 ought not to insist that the appellant should lead evidence to show the exact amount of profit that would accrue to the appellant for four years and that on the facts and the evidence led and the nature of the case at the trial Court now on appeal, the appellant led credible evidence that lends itself to quantification by the trial Court.

Learned Counsel for the respondent argued in reply that in Paragraph 10(a) of the amended Statement of claim the sum of N2,786,000.00 is claimed as the net profit that accrues every month to the appellant, that net profit is total revenue minus total costs, that the pleadings of the appellant did not state how the figure of N2,786,000.00 as accrued monthly net profit was arrived at, that paragraph

10(a) of the amended statement of claim states that the said accrued monthly net profit is claimed from November 2006 until the embargo is lifted by the Central Bank of Nigeria, that as the writ of summons shows, this action was commenced on 16-2-2007 and judgment was rendered therein on 25-9-2012, that it is clear that the claim is for paper or anticipated or unrealized profit, that the trial Court was right when it held that there is no evidence such as book of account or ledger of the appellant to prove this monthly loss of net profit of N2,786,000.00, that the appellant did not plead in its amended statement of claim that the embargo was lifted by the Central Bank of Nigeria and when it was lifted, that the trial Court was right to have held that the appellants claim for N2,786,000.00 as accrued monthly net profit failed.

Relying on the judicial authorities of Spring Bank PLC v. Adekunle (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt.1229) 581 at 586, NNPC v. CLIFCO Nig Ltd (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt 1255) 209 at 218, Incar (Nig) Ltd v. Benson Trans Ltd (1975) 3 SC 117, Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 357 and Oshinjinrin v. Elias (1970)1 All NLR 153, Learned Counsel also submitted that

special damages need to be specially and specifically pleaded and strictly proved and that the preponderant view of the Courts decision is that the determination and award of special damages on the basis of a party’s pleading alone may not be prudent as proof must be anchored on concrete documentary evidence.

Let me now consider the merits of the above arguments of both sides.

The claim for loss of net profits by the appellants is contained in Paragraph 10(a) of the amended statement of claim. Although it is already reproduced in page 2 of this judgment, at the risk of repetition, I will reproduce it here again for ease of reference. It reads thusly-
“The defendant shall indemnity the plaintiff of all the net profit of N2,786,000.00 that shall have accrued to the plaintiff monthly from November 2006 until the embargo is lifted by the (CBN) Central Bank of Nigeria.”

?The appellant had pleaded in paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim that “since the placement of the embargo on the plaintiff by the CBN, the plaintiff has ceased doing business and has lost all the profit which accrued to the plaintiff every month.” That the defendant is aware

that the plaintiff makes a net profit of N2,786,000.00 every month.

The respondent in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the amended statement of defence answered paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim thusly;
19. “The defendant vehemently denies paragraph 7 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiff to the proof of every material allegation that is contained therein.
20. In further answer to paragraph 7 of the statement of claim the defendant states that at no time was he instrumental to the placement of embargo on the plaintiff as he or his staff did not act on behalf of the plaintiff. It is also not true that the plaintiff makes a profit of N2,786.00 (Two thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty six Naira) every month. The monthly profit of the plaintiff varies from time to time.”

In paragraph 24 of the amended statement of defence, the respondent stated that the appellant is not entitled to any arm of the reliefs sought and that the suit be dismissed.

The arguments of both sides have thrown up two questions as follows-
1. Whether the amended statement of claim pleaded sufficient facts to make a case for the claim in paragraph

10(a) therein.
2. Whether the appellant proved the claim and what is the nature or type and quantum of evidence required to prove entitlement to the award of the relief in paragraph 10(a) of the amended statement of claim.

The facts required to be pleaded in a statement of claim to make out case for a relief claimed would depend on the nature of the relief. So Learned Counsel for the respondent was right when he defined the relief sought before arguing that sufficient facts were not pleaded in support of the relief. Determining the nature of the relief or defining it would help show the minimum facts required to be pleaded to make out a case for it. So I will preface the determination of question 1 above with a restatement of the definition of the relief claimed in Paragraph 10(a) of the amended statement of claim.

What paragraph claimed for was monthly net profit that shall have accrued to the appellant from November 2006 till the embargo is lifted by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

?I agree with the definition of the term ‘net profit’ by Learned Counsel for the respondent. He adopted the definition of the term in Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th

Edition, page 1329 as follows- “Total sales revenue less the cost of the goods sold and all additional expenses – also termed net revenue.” Simply Put, net profit is profit after deduction of total costs from gross or total profit.

The respondent who pleaded in paragraphs 7 and 9 of its amended claim that since November 2006 when the Central Bank of Nigeria embargoed transactions by the appellant and between the appellant and the general public, it has ceased doing business and has been out of business, claimed in paragraph 10(a) of its amended statement of claim, the monthly net profit of N2,786,000.00 that shall have accrued to it “from November 2006 until the embargo is lifted by the (CBN) Central Bank of Nigeria”. I agree with the submission of Learned Counsel for the respondent that the net profit “that shall have accrued to” it during the period it was out of business due to the embargo, amounts to paper profit which is defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at P. 1329 as “A profit that is anticipated but not yet realized. Gains from stock holding, for example, are paper profits unit the stock is actually sold at a price higher than its

original purchase price – Also termed unrealized profit.”

It is settled by a long line of judicial authorities to the point that it is now trite that a claim for an amount of money as actual or anticipated profit lost is a claim for a specie or type of special damages. See A-G Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels (No 2) (1989)12 SC (Pt 1) 1, Odumosu v. ACB Ltd (1976) 11 SC 55, Dumez Nig. Ltd v. Ogboli (supra) West African Shipping Agency Nig. Ltd v. Kalla (1978) 3 SC 21, Ijebu Ode Local Government v. Adedeji Balogun & Co. (1991)1 NWLR (Pt 166) 136 and UBA PLC v. BTL Ind. Ltd (2006)19 NWLR (Pt.1013) 61, Fidelity Bank PLC v. Kates Associated Industries Ltd (2012) LPELR- 97090 (CA) and NMA V. Marine Management Associates Inc & Anor (2008) LPELR – 4583 (CA).

As a claim for special damages, the facts that make the case for it must be specially and specifically pleaded. See A-G Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels (No 2) (supra), Fidelity Bank PLC v. Kates Association Industries Ltd (supra) and NMA v. Marine v. Management Associates Inc & Anor (supra). To satisfy this requirement, the pleading must contain facts that show the exact amount lost or to be lost

as net profits and why the amount is net profit. To achieve these, the facts must contain the particulars of the gross or total profit, the particulars of the total costs and show that if the total cost is deducted from the total or gross profit, the net profit would be exact amount claimed. Where the claim is for loss of anticipated profit as in this case the facts must also show the certainty of the occurrence of the loss of the exact amount claimed as net profit.

In our present case, the appellants amended statement of claim does not contain any fact showing its monthly gross or total profit and its monthly total cost. The amended statement of claim stated only the alleged monthly net profit. The facts in the amended statement of claim do not show how and why the amount of N2,786,000.00 represent the appellant’s monthly profit. Net profit results from deducting total costs from gross profit. So an amount cannot be said to be net profit without the amount that is the gross profit and the amount that is the total cost.

?There are no facts in the amended statement of claim showing the certainty of the occurrence of the loss of N2,786,000.00 as monthly

profit. This can only be done by pleading facts showing the exact amount of net profit made in some months previous to November 2006, facts showing that without the embargo the appellant would have earned the same amount as monthly net profit. It is noteworthy that the respondent in paragraph 20 of the amended statement of defence denied paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim that appellant makes a monthly net profit of N2,786,000.00 and stated therein that monthly profit of the plaintiff varies from time to time. The appellant did not respond to this averment in its reply to the statement of defence.

The appellant in paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim stated that “the defendant is aware that the plaintiff makes a net profit of N2,786.00 per month. Yet in paragraph 10(a) of amended statement of claim the appellant claimed for N2,786,000.00 as the monthly net profit that would have accrued to it if it was doing business.

The facts contained in the amended statement of claim make it impossible to quantify or assess the exact amount of monthly net profit the appellant earns.

For the above reasons I hold that the appellant did not

specially and specifically plead the amount that is the lost or anticipated loss of monthly net profit. The general and vague assertion in paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim that “the plaintiff has ceased doing business and has lost all the profit which accrued to the plaintiff every month” cannot qualify as such special and specific pleading.

In the absence of such special and specific pleading of the amount lost or anticipated to be lost as monthly net profit, the appellant did not make out a case of loss or anticipated loss of N2,786,000.00 as monthly net profit.

Let me now deal with the second question of the nature and quantum of evidence required to prove the lost net profit or anticipated net profit and whether the appellant proved loss of net profit or anticipated net profit.
The nature of the evidence required to strictly prove loss of net profit or anticipated net profit would depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case. See Odulaja v. Haddad (supra). Where the pleadings and evidence stated the amount earned as gross profit, the amount spent as total cost and the amount earned as net profit within a relevant period is

not contradicted, then the lost profit or anticipated profit can be proved on minimal evidence such as the uncontradicted oral evidence of a witness. See Boshali v. A.C.E. Ltd (supra) and Odulaja v. Haddad (supra).

Where the pleading and evidence of the amount that accrued or would have accrued as net profit is denied in the pleading and evidence of the defendant, as in this case, then the mere oral testimony of the plaintiff or his witness that it makes a particular amount as net profit is not enough to strictly prove the said net profit. This is because the transactions and operations of the appellant as a registered foreign exchange dealer are mandatorily documentary. It is only its books of accounts that contain information concerning its total cost, gross profit and net profit for a period of one month, 6 months, one year, etc. It is those Books one must read to know the total expenditure, gross earnings and net profit of the appellant for a month or other relevant period. So where the amount of net profit or anticipated net profit lost is disputed, account books like ledgers, receipts, etc must be tendered in evidence by the plaintiff to prove the

exact amount of not profit or anticipated profit lost. In our present case the said account documents were not tendered in evidence by the appellant, who rather sought to rely on the oral assertion of its witness that it makes a monthly net profit of N2,786,000.00, the trial Court was right when it held that there was no concrete evidence such as account books or ledger to prove the loss of net profit or anticipated net profit of N2,786,000.00.

In any case, considering that the case of loss of net profit or anticipated net profit of N2,786,000.00 was not made out on the amended statement of claim, no amount of evidence would have proven such a case. It is only the case made out in the pleading that can be proved. A party cannot prove a case he did not made out in his pleadings. See Nwosu v Azodo & Ors (unreported) Judgment in CA/E/EPT/50/2015 delivered on 2015).

In the light of the foregoing, I hold that trial Court was right when it held that the appellant’s claim for N2,786, 000.00 as net profit or anticipated net profit lost monthly from November 2006 failed.

Issue No 1 in the appellants brief is resolved in favor of the respondent.

I will now determine issue No 2 in the appellant’s brief.

The appellant in paragraph (10)(c) of its amended statement of claim claimed for “N1000,000.00 as special and general damages.

The trial Court in its Judgment awarded the appellant the sum of N500,000.00 as general damages for the loss of business suffered by the appellant since November 2006 due to the embargo of the appellants transactions by the Central Bank of Nigeria due to the act of the respondent.

The appellant who was awarded half the amount it claimed for is now complaining that the amount awarded is manifestly too low.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the award of N500,000 as general damages is unreasonable and based on wrong principles of law, that the trial Court ought to consider the conduct of the respondent before making the award, that it was the act of the respondent that caused the appellant to stay out of business for four years and so the trial Court should have awarded substantial general damages to the appellant.

Learned counsel then restated the circumstances when an appellate Court would interfere with an award of general damages by a

trial Court and then urged this Court to interfere with the award made by the trial Court on the ground that it was ridiculously too low, the trial Court acted on wrong principles of law in making the award and that the award occasioned a miscarriage of justice on the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in reply that the award of N500,000.00 general damages by the trial Court cannot be faulted, that the award of such damages is at the discretion of the trial Court, that the trial Court did not act on any wrong principle of law in the award.

Let me now consider the merit of the above arguments of both sides.

Let me straight away point out that the appellant has not pointed out the wrong principle of law relied on by the trial Court in making the award and has not demonstrated why the award of half the amount claimed for as general damages by the appellant is unreasonable or ridiculously too low. It is not enough to assert that an award of general damages is unreasonable or ridiculously too low. The party so asserting must go further to demonstrate by reference to the circumstances of the case why the amount awarded is

unreasonable or too low.

The award of general damages is a matter within the discretionary Jurisdiction of the trial Court, which discretion it must exercise Judicially and Judiciously. See Okwejiminor v Gbakeji & Anor (2008) 1Â SC (Pt.111) 263. Being a discretion primarily belonging to the trial Court, an appellate Court must be circumspect in accepting an invitation to interfere with the amount awarded by the trial Court as general damages. As held by the Supreme Court in Oduwole & Ors v. West (2010) LPELR – 2263 (SC) “as a matter of general principle; an appellate Court would not interfere with an award of damages by a trial Court simply because faced with a similar situation and circumstances it would have awarded a different amount. An appeal Court will however interfere with an award by a trial Court where it is clearly shown:
(a) That the trial Court acted upon wrong principle of law, or
(b) That the amount awarded by the trial Court is ridiculously too high or too low
(c) That the amount was an entirely erroneous and unreasonable estimate having regard to the circumstances of the case”. See also Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing

Co. Ltd v ACB Ltd (2004) 1 SC (Pt.1) 32.

The appellant has not shown the existence of any of the circumstances that justify an interference by this Court with the award of general damages of N500,000.00 by the trial Court.

The consideration of a complain against an award of general damages is not a consideration at large. The complain is determined on the basis of the grounds for the complain. If the grounds for the complain fails, then the complain is baseless.

For the above reasons, I resolve issues No 2 in favor of the respondent.

On the whole this appeal fails as it lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the High Court of Anambra State sitting at Onitsha delivered in suit No O/23/2007 on 25-9-2012 per P.C. Nwizu is hereby affirmed and upheld.

The appellant shall pay cost of N100,000.00 to the respondent.

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment prepared and rendered by my learned brother – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JCA. He adequately dealt with all the issues in the appeal to my satisfaction. I have nothing more useful to add to it.

I agree with the conclusion that the appeal

is incompetent and it is accordingly, struck out.

I adopt the order as to costs contained in the lead judgment, as mine.

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUF, J.C.A.: I read before now the lead judgment of my learned brother EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JCA. He dealt exhaustively and comprehensively with the issues relevant to this appeal. For the reasons advanced in the lead judgment which I adopt as mine, this appeal is dismissed. I abide by the order as to costs contained therein.

Appearances:

Obi Anizoba, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Chief Ikenna Egbuna For Respondent(s)

Appearances

Obi Anizoba, Esq. For Appellant

AND

Chief Ikenna Egbuna For Respondent