JOEL ADEBOBOYE OLOYE & ORS v. HRM OBA Z.O.A. ADEWUMI
(2018)LCN/12297(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 18th day of December, 2018
CA/EK/19/2017
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: WHETHER COST SHOULD BE AWARDED
“The law is trite that, in the case a wholly successful Defendant, the Judge must give him his costs unless there is evidence that the Defendant has done some wrongful act in the course of transaction of which the Plaintiff complained. See the case of RITTER V. GODFREY (1920) 2 KB 47 @ 60.” PER FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.
TORT LAW: CLAIM OF TRESPASS
“The claim for trespass cannot therefore succeed because trespass is rooted in exclusiveness. In the case of IGNATIOUS ANYANWU & 5 ORS v. OLOYSIUS UZOWUAKA & 13 ORS (2009) 177 LRCN 200, the Supreme Court held at page 246 that:- “Trespass to land is a wrongful entry into the land in actual or constructive possession of another. Trespass therefore is rooted in exclusive possession, therefore all plaintiff needs to prove is that he has exclusive possession or that he has the right to such possession of the land in dispute”. In this case, the Claimant/Respondent did not sue in a Representative Capacity and there’s no such Endorsement in his writ of summons.” PER FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. JOEL ADEBOBOYE OLOYE
2. JAMES ADEDAYO OWONIFARI
3. JEREMIAH OLOYE
4. IDOWU ADEBIYI
5. SUNDAY ABEL ASEA Appellant(s)
AND
HRM OBA Z.O.A. ADEWUMI
(The Olowuro of Orun-Ekiti) Respondent(s)
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Ekiti State Holden at lse – Ekiti, Judicial Division Per L. O Ogundana J. which Judgment was delivered on the 13th day of June, 2016 in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent and granting him all the Reliefs sought. The Plaintiff/Respondent in his Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim sought for the following Reliefs:
“(a) A DECLARATION that the Claimant is the sole authority and custodian of all royal lands situate, lying and being at ltolofo, Ugbo, Udu and Egan Aarin in Orun- Ekiti.
(b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and or privies from further sales of royal lands situate, lying and being at ltolofo, Ugbo, Udu and Egan Aarin and further acts of trespass on the royal lands aforementioned.
(C) The sum of five million Nara only (N5 Million) being general damages for the trespass committed and still being committed by the defendants on the royal lands under the authority and control of the Claimant.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Claimant/Respondent is the Oba or King of Orun-Ekiti in Ekiti State. There are two ruling houses in Orun-Ekiti. The two ruling houses are Ajilabiowu Ruling House and Oyikusoye Ruling House.
There are three Royal Lands in Orun-Ekiti. The three Royal Lands are Itolofo, Ugbo Udu and Egan Aarin. The three Royal Lands belong to the two Ruling Houses in Orun-Ekiti in Ekiti State. The Claimant did not sue in a Representative Capacity and there’s no such Endorsement in his writ of summons.
It is the claim for the Respondent that on Ascension of the throne as the Oba or King of Orun-Ekiti he became the Sole Authority and Custodian of all Royal Lands in Orun-Ekiti. The Respondent went further by saying that the Appellants were selling part of the Royal Lands, without the consent or permission of the Respondent hence this action.
The Appellants denied the claim of Respondent. According to the Appellants it was the Respondent who was selling the Royal lands without the knowledge or consent of the Appellants’ Family. The Appellants argued forcefully that with the inception of the Land Use Act 1978, all that the Respondent can lay claim to is a Certificate of Occupancy.
The trial of this case commenced on the 2nd day of March, 2015, when the Respondent gave evidence as PW1, and tendered some documents. He called two witnesses, Mrs. Eunice Ajayi Folorunsho as PW2, and High Chief Lawrence Omolade Akinyede as PW3, the Respondent and his witnesses conceded to the fact that the three Royal Lands in Orun-Ekiti belong to the Two Ruling Houses.
On the 11th day of December 2015, the Appellants opened their defence when the sole witness Joel Adeboboye Oloye gave evidence for the Appellants.
He also tendered some documents. He conceded that the Two Ruling Houses are the owners of the Three Royal Lands in Orun-Ekiti.
The learned trial judge ordered parties to this case within a stipulated time, within which to write, and file written addresses. Both written addresses were adopted on the 27th day of April 2016. On the 13th Day of June 2016, Judgment was given by the learned trial Judge.
The learned trial Judge gave Judgment in favour of the Respondent, hence this appeal. On the 11th Day of July, 2016, the Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal with Seven Grounds of Appeal.
On the 7th Day of February 2017, this Honourable Court granted leave for the Appellants to file and argue additional Grounds of Appeal.
The said Amended Grounds of Appeal was filed at the Court below on the 14th of February 2017.
In line with the practice of this Court parties exchanged briefs of argument. The appellant’s brief settled by Tokunbo Aderinboye Esq., was filed on 28-2-2018. While respondent’s brief settled by Ezekiel Agunbiade Esq., was filed on 27/4/2018. When the appeal came up for hearing on the 15/10/18 both council adopted their respective briefs of argument. Appellant’s counsel urged the Court to allow the appeal. While Respondent’s counsel urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants distilled three (3) Issues for determination from the Notice of Appeal and the Amended Grounds of Appeal containing Twelve (12) Grounds of Appeal. The three Issues are set down as follows:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge ought to have dismissed the Respondent’s Claim when the Respondent did not reply to the 1st and 2nd Issues Raised by the Appellants?
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge ought to have reframed the Respondents Claim suo motu without giving parties to this suit an opportunity to react and make contributions?
(3) Whether the Respondent’s claim for trespass, injunction, and damages can succeed when the lands in dispute belong to two ruling houses?
Respondent’s counsel observed that the Appellants did not file a Counter Claim. He adopted the three issues as formulated by the Appellants in this appeal.
He rightly pointed out that issue 1, is confusing, inelegant and the issue is not attached to any Ground of Appeal.
Issues for determination should be distilled from the grounds or ground of appeal and must naturally flow from the essential complaint in the ground or grounds of appeal.
In the case of Owners of M/V GONGOLA HOPE & ANOR v. SMURFIT CASES NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR (2007) LPELR -2849 (SC). It was held :- “It is settled law that issues for determination must relate or tie to the grounds of appeal and where such issues do not tally with the grounds of appeal, they become incompetent and are deemed non-issues and should be ignored and struck out.
It must be emphasized that even a respondent to an appeal is not permitted to formulate any issues not arising from or related to the grounds of appeal.”
Per Musdapher, JSC.
“For issues placed before an appeal Court for determination of an appeal to be competent, they must be formulated from the grounds of appeal. They must be based on, related to or arise from the grounds of appeal. In the case of Idika & Ors v. Erisi & Ors (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 563, the Supreme Court held that issues or questions for determination are framed from the grounds of appeal properly before the Court. They do not arise in NUBIBUS from the skies.”
Per Muhammad, JSC (P. 35, paras. C-E)
I find that Appellant’scounsel did not state from which grounds of appeal he distilled the three issues he distilled for determination, of this appeal. Consequently the three issues distilled by Appellants’ counsel for determination having not been tied to the grounds of appeal, from which they have been distilled are incompetent and liable to be struck out.
However having stated the above position of the law, l will go ahead and consider the three issues as formulated by the Appellants.
ISSUE ONE
WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE OUGHT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE RESPONDENT?S CLAIM WHEN THE RESPONDENT DID NOT REPLY TO THE 1ST AND 2ND ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANTS?
Appellants referred to the Respondent’s first claim, which is for declaration, that he is the Sole Authority and Custodian of all Royal Lands situate, lying and being at Itolofo, Ugbo Udu and Egan Aarin in Orun-Ekiti. The Appellants however raised three issues at the lower Court. The three issues are as follows:-
1. Whether the Claimant’s (Respondent’s) claim is competent and constitutional having regard to the Land Use Act of 1978?
2. Whether the Claimant (Respondent’s) claim for Five Million Naira damages can succeed?
3. Whether the Claimant (Respondent) can succeed in this case in his personal capacity? (See record of proceedings page 108 Lines 1-6).
Appellants’ counsel in arguing the 1st issue for determination submitted that with the enactment of the Land Use Act 1978, the only claim the Respondent can claim is for a Certificate of Occupancy.
It was also submitted that the claim for a Sole Authority and Custodian is a forgone issue with the enactment of the 1978 Land Use Act. The Appellant cited some Supreme Court authorities in support of the 1st issue apart from the, 1978 Land Use Act.
On the 2nd issue, it was submitted that since the lands in dispute belong to two Royal families that the issue of trespass injunction and damages cannot succeed.
This according to the Appellants submission is that to succeed in a case of Trespass, one must be able to prove Exclusive Possession to the lands in dispute. But in the present case, the lands in dispute belong to Two Ruling Houses or Families.
According to Sections 131, 132 and 133 of The Evidence Act 2011, he who alleges must prove, and proof is on a preponderance of evidence. See UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. HENRY TIVDE ADOM & ORS (2003) FWLR at 679. In the case of INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD v. MRS. JUMMAIR I. ANYIP (2011) 202 LRCN 51 the Supreme Court held at page 61 that “As earlier pointed out in this Judgment, the Appellant Formulated two Issues for our consideration, out of which only Issue 1 was argued.
In the brief, having failed to proffer any argument in respect of the second issue, the legal consequence is quite clear in my view that the said Issue has been abandoned.”
Appellants’ counsel submitted that in the present case, the Appellant raised three issues for determination, but the Respondent had no answer to the 1st & 2nd issues raised. The inability of the Respondent to answer the two issues are not farfetched. This is because with the promulgation of 1978, Land Use Act, the issue of the: ‘King Owns the Land’ is no more. The learned trial Judge who came to the Rescue of the Respondent did not help matters. He too conceded in his Judgment that the best the Respondent can have is a Certificate of Occupancy.
Furthermore, both parties conceded to the fact that the lands in dispute belongs to both Ajilabiowu and Oyikusoye Ruling Houses. The issue of exclusiveness which is a fundamental proof for a claim for trespass cannot be proved.
Appellants’ counsel submitted that, in view of the inability of the Respondent to reply to the 1st and 2nd issues, raised by the Appellants, the proper thing for the learned trial Judge to do is to dismiss the Respondent?s claim. But the learned trial Judge however tongue lashed the learned defense counsel, and went ahead to still give him Judgment. According to the learned trial Judge: at pages 30 and 33 of the Judgment, now page 174, Lines 8-11 and pages 177 lines 1-5, of the record of appeal:- One the 1st issue for determination:- “Surprisingly as weighty and fundamental as this issue raised by the Defence Counsel in his written address is, the Claimant’s Counsel Proffered No Argument To Counter Same In His Written Address.”
On the 2nd issue for determination the learned trial Judge said:- “It is Appalling the Claimant’s Counsel Tosin Osundahunsi Esq. Again glossed over this Issue without saying a word to counter his Legal Argument despite the significant position of the concept of parties and their capacities occupy in our Jurisprudence of practice and procedure.”
See the case of DANIEL TAYAR TRANSPORT ENTERPRISES NIG. CO. LTD V. ALHAJI LIADI BUSARI & 1 OR (2011) 191 LRCN 25; EX-CAPT CHARLES C. EKEAGWU v. THE NIGERIAN ARMY & 1 OR (2011) 191 LRCN 111.
Appellants’ counsel concluded that, since the Respondent did not respond to the issues raised by the Appellants in the 1st & 2nd Issues for determination by the Appellants, he urged this Court that the Respondent’s claims should be dismissed.
The Respondent’s counsel in his response to Issue 1 referred to, the contention of the Appellants under this issue, that the Appellants have raised Three Issues in their Final Address at the trial Court, from which the Respondent did not respond to their Issues 1 and 2. And that having failed to reply to the issues raised, the proper thing for the learned trial Judge to do was to dismiss the Respondent’s claim at the trial Court.
However, the contention of the Appellants that the learned trial Judge at the Court below tongue lashed the learned Defence Counsel, with respect is borne out of records. The learned trial Judge only observed that ?the Claimant?s Counsel proffered no argument to counter same in his Written Address.”
Respondent’s counsel submitted further that, from the argument of the Appellants concerning Issue One, it would appear, that they do not know the difference between an Address and a Brief. A mental opinion to perceive either the tenuousness in what had appeared impregnable, or to see through the veneer and discover the hard core of a party?s case.
However, Addresses are designed to assist the Court when, as in this case, the facts are straight forward and in the main not in dispute, the trial Court would be free to dispense with Final Addresses, as cases are normally not decided on Addresses but on credible evidence. No amount of brilliance in a final speech can make up for the lack of evidence to prove and establish or else disprove and demolish points in issue. There are even occasions when Address from Counsel are a matter of formality. They may not dismiss or add to the strength or weakness in a party’s case. The facts and the law applicable in such cases speak loudly for themselves to require address.
i.OBODO v. OLOMU & ANOR (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 59) 111
ii. DONATUS NDU v. THE STATE (1990) 7 NWLR (164) 550 @ PG 569 PARAS B – E.
Respondent’s learned counsel submitted that, a Brief of Argument as its name suggests is required to be a concise and succinct statement or presentation of the facts of the case and the legal argument or submission of the party in an appeal, and does not therefore admit, or allow an overflow of arguments before the Appellate Court, like that of pleadings in the trial Court, is to enable the parties to know the cases they are going to meet on appeal and trial respectively. See the cases of:
i. RTEAN v. NURTW (1992) 2 NWLR 381 @ 391
ii. AMADI v. ESSIEN (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 354) 91 @ 112
iii. OBIORA v. OSELE (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 97) 279 @ 288 ? 289
iv. CHINWEZE v. MASI (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 97) 254 @ 265
What can be more. The Appellants as Defendants formulated Three Issues in their Address at the trial Court to wit:
i. Whether the Claimants claim is competent and constitutional having regard to the Land Use Act of 1978.
ii. Whether the Claimants? claim for Five Million Naira (N5M) general damages for trespass can succeed.
iii. Whether the Claimant can succeed in this case in his personal capacity.
On his own, the Respondent as Claimant in the trial Court formulated three issues to wit:
i. Whether the Claimant can by his pleading and has satisfactorily established his Lordship on the royal lands being the current and reigning Olowuro of Orun-Ekiti.
ii. Whether the claim of the Claimant is rendered void by the virtue of the Land Use Act 1978.
iii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to general damages.
On its part, the trial Court formulated suo motu and decided the case on Three Issues which veritably captioned the three issues formulated differently by both the Respondent and the Appellants. The issues are contained at pages 166 – 167 thus:
i. Whether the claim of the Claimant, as constituted in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed in this suit, is competent and constitutional having regards to the relevant provisions of the Land Use Act 1978.
ii. Whether the Claimant can succeed on his claim herein the capacity in which he instituted this suit.
iii. Whether from the state of the pleadings and the evidence led thereon, oral and documentary, the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence so as to be qualified for the grant of the reliefs sought in this case.
The Judgment of the trial Court was based on the issues formulated by the trial Court, and not on the Issues framed by the Appellants at the lower Court, and it was decided upon the party’s pleadings and their evidence. The law is trite that an Address of a Counsel, no matter how brilliant it may be, cannot take the place of pleadings and evidence before the Court. He therefore urged this Court to so hold.
In the Judgment, the subject of this appeal, the Appellants are contending that, the Claimants at the lower Court did not Counter their submissions in the Address before the lower Court, but the trial judge find this inconsequential. Hence the Court held at pages 174 – 176 of the records thus:
“It would, however appear as if the Appellate Courts are saying that where a Claimant establishes a case that would warrant or ground the Courts pronouncing his entitlement to the grant of a certificate of Occupancy, then the Court should, in the interest of justice, not allow his application for a declaration of his entitlement to a certificate of statutory right of occupancy to defeat his ordinarily deserved victory…”.
Learned counsel submitted, that unfortunately, the Appellants did not appeal against these findings. The trial Court relied on the case of AMADI V. AMADI (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 626) 559 @ 573 – 574 PARAS H & C.
Upon a holistic reading of the Appellants’ Issue One above, apart from the fact that the Issue is confusing, inelegant and unintelligible, the issue is not attached to any Ground of Appeal, thereby rendering it incompetent and liable to be struck out. And he urged this Court to so hold.
Upon the above standpoint, learned counsel urged this Court to resolve Issue One against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondent.
I have carefully studied the arguments of learned counsel on this issue. The claim of the Respondent before the lower Court is for a declaration of title, an order of injunction and general damages. The Claimant has a duty to prove his case by credible evidence. The contention of the Appellants under issue 1 is that they raised three issues in their final Address at the trial, and that the Respondent did not respond to their lssues 1 and 2, and having failed to reply to the issues they raised, the learned trial judge ought to have dismissed the Respondent’s claim. I must state clearly that no amount of brilliance in a final address can take the place of credible evidence to prove and establish the claim. See the case of OBODO v. OLOMU & ANOR (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 59)111.
The judgment of the lower Court was based on issues formulated by the Court and not issues framed by the Appellants.
As l stated earlier in this judgment Appellants issue 1 is not attached to any Ground of Appeal, consequently it is incompetent and l hereby strike it out. Issue one is resolved in favour of Respondent.
ISSUE TWO
WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE OUGHT TO HAVE REFRAMED THE RESPONDENT’S CLAIM SUO MOTU WITHOUT GIVING THE PARTIES TO THIS SUIT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACT AND MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS.?
In arguing issue 2, learned counsel for the Appellants referred to the Respondent?s claims at the lower Court. He reiterated the point that, without giving the parties to this suit any opportunity to make any contribution, the learned trial Judge reframed the Respondent?s claim when giving Judgment.
Appellants counsel submitted that the Respondent is Claiming a Declaration that he is the Sole Authority and Custodian of the lands in dispute, but the lower Court declared him a Different Declaration Suo Moto for a Declaration for a Statutory Right of Occupancy.
The Respondent is also claiming for N5 Million damages for trespass but the Court granted Trespass in Atonement.
See the case of DALEK NIGERIA LIMITED v. OIL MINERAL PRODUCING AREAS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (OMPADEC) (2007) 146 LRCN 869.
Appellants’ counsel cited in aid the cases ofUDENZE & ORS v. NWOSU & ORS (2008) 154 LRCN 10; LEADERS OF COMPANY LTD (Publishers Of This Day?) & 1 OR v. MAJOR GENERAL MUSA BAMAIYI (2011) 199 LRCN 185; DURISIMINIYA v. C.O.P (1961) NNLR 70 at 74; DENNIS IVIENAGBOR v. HENRY OSATO BAZUAYE (1999) 6 SCNJ 235 At 243; (1999) 70 LRCN 2256. In the circumstance, learned counsel urged this Court to dismiss the Respondent’s Claim, for Raising Issues Suo Moto. And deciding this case without giving Counsels to this suit the opportunity to contribute to the issues raised.
Respondent’s counsel on the second issue, reiterated the fact that, this Issue is equally not attached to any Ground of Appeal and therefore very incompetent. Besides, the Appellants appear confused and cannot distinguish between a claim and an Order of Court. The trial Court did not reframe the Respondent’s claim but gave orders upon the success of Claims of the Claimant based on the Pleadings and Evidence adduced before the trial Court. See the cases of:
i. OJAH V. OGBONI (1996) 6 NWLR (PT. 454) 272 @ 299 PARAS D – E.
ii. AMADI V. AMADI (Supra)
Respondent’s learned counsel submitted that the Orders and declarations made by the trial Court, are within its powers based on its findings. For instance, the award of costs between party and party are done on the basis that the successful party must be reimbursed by him, which were necessary, proper and reasonable for him to obtain justice. It is from statute, mainly from the rules of Court, that the Courts derive the powers to order costs. The general rule is that costs follow event. See UNION BANK v. NWAOKOLO (1995) 4 SCNJ 93 @ 112.
The law is trite that, in the case a wholly successful Defendant, the Judge must give him his costs unless there is evidence that the Defendant has done some wrongful act in the course of transaction of which the Plaintiff complained. See the case of RITTER V. GODFREY (1920) 2 KB 47 @ 60.
In all, learned counsel urged this Court to hold that the trial Court has an unfettered discretion to vary a claim, and award any appropriate costs based on judicial and judicious consideration. Respondent’s counsel observed that the Appellants have not pointed out, that they suffered any miscarriage of justice by the orders handed down by the trial Judge. Rather they are complaining that the trial Judge varied the language used by the Claimants in his claims. The orders are different from issues. Issues duly formulated by the trial Judge are contained at pages 166 – 167 of the record. While the orders arose from the findings of Court on the issues and what the Claimants are entitled to.
Respondent’s counsel therefore urged this Court to resolve Issue Two against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondent.
The powers vested in the Courts to adjudicate over matters before them is vested in the Courts by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The trial Court acted within its constitutional powers by issuing orders, upon the success of Claimants Claims. See the case of AMADI V AMADI (supra). I am of the view that the learned trial Judge acting within the powers conferred on him by the orders, and declarations it made based on its findings. Consequently Issue two is resolved in favour of the Respondent.
ISSUE THREE
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT?S CLAIM FOR TRESPASS AND DAMAGES CAN SUCCEED WHEN THE LANDS IN DISPUTE BELONG TO TWO FAMILIES?
Appellants’ counsel submitted that both parties to this dispute and the Court conceded that the lands in dispute belongs to two Royal families (i.e.) Ajilabiowu And Oyinkusoye Ruling Houses. The claim for trespass cannot therefore succeed because trespass is rooted in exclusiveness. In the case of IGNATIOUS ANYANWU & 5 ORS v. OLOYSIUS UZOWUAKA & 13 ORS (2009) 177 LRCN 200, the Supreme Court held at page 246 that:- “Trespass to land is a wrongful entry into the land in actual or constructive possession of another. Trespass therefore is rooted in exclusive possession, therefore all plaintiff needs to prove is that he has exclusive possession or that he has the right to such possession of the land in dispute”. In this case, the Claimant/Respondent did not sue in a Representative Capacity and there’s no such Endorsement in his writ of summons.
It is therefore submitted that since the Respondent is not in Exclusive Possession of the land in dispute, the claim for trespass, injunction, and damages should fail.
Respondent’s counsel in arguing issue three noted that this Issue is not related to any Ground of Appeal and consequently incompetent. However, the lands in issue are vested in the Respondent and not partitioned among the families. The testimonies of PW1 were wholly accepted by the Appellants. Hence the trial Judge remarked at pages 187 – 188 of the record thus:
“… Surprising when it was time for the learned Counsel Adetokunbo Aderinboye to cross-examine the Claimant, he simply said he had no questions to ask him in cross-examination…”
In the instant appeal, the trial Court also found at page 304 of the record thus:
“Once a party has been shown to be the owner of a piece of land, he is in exclusive possession or has right to such possession, and anyone on the land without his permission is a trespasser ab initio.”
Learned counsel submitted, that the law is that an injunction can be sought to halt a right asserted by a family member that is inconsistent with the rights, and interest of the family, in the family property, or a right that is inconsistent with the right of the family as a whole. Hence in PERETU V. GARIGA (2013) NWLR (PT. 1348) 415 @ 438 PARAS A ? B, the Supreme Court held:
“The interest of a system, group is association is supreme over that of any member or group of members. See also
i. AMINU V. OGUNYEBI (2004) 10 NWLR (PT. 882) 457
ii. ADESANYA V. OTUEWU (1993) 1 NWLR (PT. 207) 414
iii. OKUNRINMETA V. AGITAN (2002) 2 NWLR(PT. 752) 656
iv. IBAFON CO. LTD V. NIGERIA PORTS PLC (2000) 86 @ 102 PARA E.”
On the above stand point, learned counsel urged this Court to resolve Issue Three against the Appellants in favour of the Respondent.
SEE: ONOEYO V. UBN PLC (2015) 10 NWLR (PT. 1466) 104 @ 121 PARAS C;
i. AKERE V.GOVT. OYO STATE (2012) 12 NWLR (PT. 1314) 240
ii. OMO V. JSC DELTA STATE (2000) 12 NWLR (PT. 682) 444
iii. OKOYE V. OKONKWO (2015) 5 NWLR (PT. 1451) 127
iv. CBN V. NJEMANZE (2015) 4 NWLR (PT. 1449) 276
The net effect of all of these is that all the three issues raised and argued by the Appellants are not tied to any ground of appeal they are of no moment, incompetent, valueless and ought to be ignored by this Honourable Court and thereby strike them out. Learned counsel urged this Court to so do in this appeal.
In the same vein, it is the law that ground of appeal from which no issue distilled and upon which no argument canvassed is deemed abandoned by the Appellant and should be struck out. In this appeal, no issue is formulated or distilled from any of the twelve grounds of appeal, learned counsel urged this Court to consequently strike them out. See:
i. EFCC V. AKINGBOLA (2015) 11 NWLR (PT. 1470) 249 @ 301 PARAS C ? D.
ii. WASSAH V. KARA (2015) 4 NWLR (PT 1449) 374 @ 292 PARA F.
iii. BAWA V. ALIYU (2015) 3 NWLR (PT. 1447) 523 @ 537 PARAS F ? G.
Respondents counsel urged this Court to strike out all the twelve grounds of appeal in this appeal, as none is attached to any issue distilled in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument.
Finally learned counsel urged this Court to:
a. Dismiss this appeal in its entirety.
b. Uphold the Judgment of the trial Court.
c. Award a substantial cost against the Appellants.
In this appeal, the three issues distilled for determination, are not tied to any of the grounds of appeal. What that means is that no issues for determination were distilled from all the twelve grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are deemed abandoned, consequently are struck out. This appeal is unmeritorious, it is therefore dismissed.
The judgment of the lower Court delivered in Suit No: HIS/1/2015 on the 13th day of June 2016 by Hon. Justice L.O. Ogundana is hereby affirmed.
I access costs at N50,000 in Favour of the Respondent.
AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother F. O. Akinbami, J.C.A. and I agree that this appeal is unmeritorious, it is therefore dismissed.
The judgment of the lower Court delivered in Suit No: HIS/1/2015 on 13th day of June, 2016 by Hon. Justice L. O. Ogundana is hereby affirmed. A cost of N50,000.00 is awarded to the respondent.
Appeal dismissed.
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
Tokunbo Aderinboye, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Ezekiel Agunbiade, Esq.For Respondent(s)
