MOHAMMED USMAN v. A.B.M OIL NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS
(2018)LCN/12325(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 20th day of December, 2018
CA/J/96/2018
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: THAT THE PARTY MUST OBTAIN THE ORDER HE SEEKS
“The law is very well settled that in an action, whatever its nature and no matter how it is framed, the party who approaches the Court obtains the order he seeks. The order may be declaratory or executory. It is executory where the order declares the rights of the party before the Court and then proceeds to enjoin the Defendant to act in a certain way. It is declaratory when it merely proclaims the existence of a legal relationship, but contains no specific order to be carried out by or enforced against the Defendant. CARRENA & ORS V. AKINLASE & ORS. (2008) LPELR 833 (SC); AKUNNIA V. A.G ANAMBRA STATE & ORS. Furthermore, whilst an executory judgment is capable of immediate enforcement, a declaratory judgment gives no such right. The right which a declaratory judgment confers on the Plaintiff can only be enforceable if another and subsequent judgment, howbeit relying on the rights it declared, so decrees. Such a subsequent judgment conferring the power of execution is executory. The date of enforceability must be the date of the subsequent (executory) judgment and not the earlier judgment, which is merely declaratory. OGUNLADE V. ADELEYE (1992) LPELR 2340 (SC).” PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
TRUST: WHO IS A PRIVY
“A privy is that person whose title is derived from and who claims through a party. It also includes persons having interest in property. There are three kinds of privies: a) privies in blood, such as testator and heir. b) privies in law such as testator and executor or in the case of intestate succession, a successor and administrator. c) privies in estate, such as vendor and purchasers; lessor and lessee etc. See: ARABIO V. KANGA (1932) 1 WACA 253; COKER V. SANYAOLU (1976) 9 – 10 SC 203; AKPAN V. UTIN (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 108)164; ADELEKE V. AKANJI (1994) 4 NWLR (PT. 341) 715; NWOSU V. UDEAJA (1990)1 NWLR (PT. 125) 188; AGBOGUNLERI V. DEPO & ORS. (2008) LPELR 143 (SC); The principle of law governing privies in estate in relation to judgment and order of Court has been set down by the apex Court…For a purchaser to be a party by privy, the purchase must have taken place after the judgment or the ruling against his vendor. In order words a prior purchaser cannot be a party by privy in a judgment obtained against his vendor after the purchase. See: OMIYALE V. MACAULAY & ORS (supra). ” PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TANI YUSUF HASSAN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MOHAMMED USMAN – Appellant(s)
AND
1. A.B.M OIL NIGERIA LTD
2. A.U.S GENERAL MERCHANT NIG. LTD
3. ALHAJI USMAN SALEH
4. ALHAJI ALI YUSUF
5. DEPUTY SHERRIFF, BORNO STATE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE – Respondent(s)
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The appeal is the dissatisfaction of the judgment of the High Court of Borno State in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/25/17 delivered on 15th January, 2018 by Haruna Yusuf Mshelia, J.
The Appellant who was the Claimant at the trial Court initiated an action by way of an Originating Summons filed on 23rd March, 2017 before the Borno State High Court against the Respondents who were the Defendants seeking for the determination of the following issues: –
i. ?Whether the Claimant has purchased the A.B.M filling station in an auction sale conducted by the 5th Defendant on 9/5/2013 in the execution of Judgment in suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 of 22/10/2012.
ii. Whether the Claimant is a party to the ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014 of 12/8/2014 which set aside the Judgment in suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 of 22/10/2012 thus, he is bound by the ruling.
iii. Whether the action of 5th Defendant acting on the ruling in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/0272014 of 12/8/2014 and took over the A.B.M filling station from the Claimant and handed it over to the 1st Defendant is not void, illegal and abuse of Judicial process.
Upon the determination of the above issues the Appellant sought for the following reliefs from the lower Court: –
i. A declaration that the Claimant has purchased an A.B.M filling station of Bama Road Maiduguri in an auction sale conducted by the 5th Defendant on 9/5/2017 in execution of a Judgment in suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 of 22/10/2012.
ii. A declaration that the Claimant is not a party to the ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014 which set aside the judgment in suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 of 22/10/2012 therefore not bound by it
iii. A declaration that the action of the 5th Defendant acting on the ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014 of taking over the A.B.M filling station from the Claimant and handed it over to the 1st Defendant is illegal, void and abuse of judicial process.
iv. An order directing the 5th Defendant to reverse the parties to their position before the purported enforcement of a ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014 of 15/3/2017.
The genesis of the suit leading to this appeal is that the Appellant bought a filling station known as A.B.M filling station of Bama Road Maiduguri in an auction sale conducted by the 5th Respondent pursuant to the execution of a Judgment in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011; between the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as the Plaintiffs, and 1st and 4th Respondents as the Defendants. The judgment was delivered on 22nd October, 2012. In 2014, after the execution of the Judgment against the immovable property of the 1st and 4th Respondents, the 1st Respondent filed an application before the lower Court in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14 seeking to set aside the judgment in suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 of 22nd October, 2012. The Appellant by this time had taken possession of the filing station and carrying on business therein.
He was not joined as a party in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14. The trial Court proceeded and heard the motion and in its ruling delivered on 12th August, 2014, set aside the earlier judgment and the order of attachment of immovable property made; and any action taken pursuant to the judgment and attachment order. Following the above ruling the 1st Respondent moved the 5th Respondent to execute the orders contained in the ruling.
The 5th Respondent therefore went into the Appellant’s filling station and took over same from him and handed it over to the 1st Respondent.
Consequent upon that, the Appellant initiated a action by way of an Originating Summons before the trial Court against the Respondents in suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/25/17 seeking for the determination of the issues, and grant of relieves reproduced above. None of the Respondents with the exception of 1st Respondent contested the Appellant?s suit. The trial Court in its Judgment delivered on 15th January, 2018, dismissed the Appellant?s suit, hence this appeal.
The appeal was heard on 30th October, 2018 wherein the following representations were made: K.M. Haruna Esq., for the Appellant; M.Y. Usman Esq., holding the brief of K. A. Dawud Esq., for the 1st Respondent and; Z. Hamza Esq., for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The 4th and 5th Respondents were served with hearing notices but failed to appear. Based on the order of the Court made 26th September, 2018 directing that the appeal be heard on Appellant’s and 1st Respondent’s briefs, the appeal was heard. Mr. Hamza for 2nd and 3rd Respondents said they were not filing any brief.
Mr. Haruna referred to the Appellant’s brief filed 26th March, 2018 and reply brief filed 11th June, 2018. He adopted and relied on both in urging the Court to allow the appeal. In response, Mr. Usman for the 1st Respondent referred to their brief filed 31st May, 2018. He adopted same in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.
In the Appellant’s brief settled by Mr. K. M Haruna, he distilled 3 issues as follows:
i. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellant is a party by privy to the ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/025/17 and is bound by it.
ii. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellant was aware of the proceedings in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014 but failed to apply to be joined.
iii. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the act of the 5th Respondent of dispossessing the Appellant of the filling station and delivered it to the 1st Respondent may be wrong but not void.
On their own, Mr. K. A. Dawud learned counsel for the 1st Respondent formulated 4 issues for determination to wit:
i. Whether with the subsistence of the ruling of the lower Court in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/Q2m/2014, the lower Court can grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant/Appellant by their Originating Summons in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/25/2017
ii. Whether the Claimant/Appellant is not bound by the ruling of the lower Court in Motion No. BOHC/MS/CV/02m/2014, which set aside all processes that relate him to the property known as ABM filling station and as it affect the 1st Defendant/Respondent, including the judgment of the lower Court in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011.
iii. Whether in compliance with the ruling of the lower Court in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02M/2014, the Defendant/Respondent was wrong in returning back ABM Filing station to its rightful owner, the 1st Defendant/Respondent.
In the Appellant’s reply brief, the Appellant challenged the competence of the 1st issue raised by the 1st Respondent’s counsel alleging that the same does not flow from the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal. The Courts have settled that issue or issues for determination in an appeal must flow from the grounds of appeal and therefore, any issue not founded from the grounds of appeal is incompetent and must be struck out.
See: TAHIR V. KAPITAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (2007) ALL F.W.L.R (PT. 370) PG. 1482; EMMANUEL V. DOHERTY (2008) ALL F.W.L.R (PT. 445) PG. 1634. I have gone through the grounds of appeal and I agree with the learned counsel for the Appellant that the issue 1 formulated by the Respondents does not arise from the grounds. In view of the above authorities, I hold that the 1st Respondent’s issue number one in his brief of argument is incompetent having not been distilled from the Appellant’s grounds of appeal. The same is struck out and discountenanced with the submissions made therein.
I have also examined the issues raised by the parties for the determination of this appeal, issues 1 and 3 of the Appellant which are basically the same with issues 2 and 3 of the Respondents? issues will well settle the dispute in this appeal. Also from the phrasing of the Appellant?s issues, the resolution of issue 1 will answer the Appellant?s issue 2, I shall therefore adopt issues 1 and 3 of the Appellant?s issues for the resolution of the appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON ISSUE 1
Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellant is a party by privy to the ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/025/17 and is bound by it.?
Mr. Haruna, the learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant purchased an A.B.M filling station in an auction sale conducted by the 5th Respondent on 9th May, 2013 in execution of a judgment delivered in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011; on 22nd October, 2012 between the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as plaintiffs; and 1st and 4th Respondents as Defendants at the consideration of N20,000,000.00. He noted that the 1st and 4th Respondents did not appeal against the referred judgment which execution was carried out six months thereafter. Rather by motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014; the 1st Respondent got both the judgment and the ensuing auction that vested the Filling station on the Appellant set aside. Following this the 5th Respondent repossessed the A.B.M filling station which was auctioned to the Appellant and gave the same back to the 1st Respondent.
Upon this, the Appellant initiated an action before the trial Court for a declaration that he was not a party to Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02/2014 which set aside the judgment in suit No.BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 and the ensuing order of attachment and therefore cannot be bound by the order made therein. In its judgment delivered on 15th January, 2018 the trial Court held that the Appellant is a party by privy to the ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02/14 and so was bound by it.
The learned counsel argued that the learned trial Judge was wrong in law since the Appellant purchased the filling station long before the ruling that set aside the judgment in execution of which he purchased the filling station. He submitted that, for a purchaser to be a party by privy, the purchase must have taken place after the judgment or the ruling against his vendor. He cited: OMIYALE V. MACAULAY & ORS (2009) 3 M.J.S.C PG. 29 AT 45 PARAS C – D.
Mr. Haruna argued that had the Appellant been joined as a party to Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14, the ruling would not have affected the auction of the filling station to the Appellant. He relied on:SALEH V. MONGUNO (2006) 15 NWLR PT. 1001 PG. 26 AT 51-52 PARAS F-B.
He finally urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant.
In response, Mr. Dawud, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Appellant is bound by the ruling of the trial Court in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14 since the claim of the Appellant to the auctioned A.B.M. Filling Station was as a result of the Judgment in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011, which was set aside by the trial Court with all that followed the Judgment as it affects the 1st Respondent including the auction. He referred Court to: SALEH V. MONGUNO & ORS (2006) LPELR-2992 (SC); MACFOY V. U. A. C. LTD (1962) AC 152 AT 160; OKAFOR V. A G ANAMBRA STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (PT. 200) 659.
He urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the 1st Respondent.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE 1
A privy is that person whose title is derived from and who claims through a party. It also includes persons having interest in property. There are three kinds of privies:
a) privies in blood, such as testator and heir
b) privies in law such as testator and executor or in the case of intestate succession, a successor and administrator.
c) privies in estate, such as vendor and purchasers; lessor and lessee etc. See: ARABIO V. KANGA (1932) 1 WACA 253; COKER V. SANYAOLU (1976) 9 – 10 SC 203; AKPAN V. UTIN (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 108)164; ADELEKE V. AKANJI (1994) 4 NWLR (PT. 341) 715; NWOSU V. UDEAJA (1990)1 NWLR (PT. 125) 188; AGBOGUNLERI V. DEPO & ORS. (2008) LPELR 143 (SC); The principle of law governing privies in estate in relation to judgment and order of Court has been set down by the apex Court.
In OMIYALE V. MACAULAY & ORS (2009) 3 M.J.S.C PG. 29 AT 45 PARAS C-D; where with similar facts, the Appellants therein contended that the Respondents were privies of the parties in Exhibits M and M1 because the root of title of the Respondents was traced to one of the parties in the Exhibits referred to. The Apex Court followed its earlier decision in TALABI V. ADESEYE (1972) 7 -8 SC 20; where per Coker, JSC said:
“Prima facie, a prior purchaser of land cannot be estopped as being privy in estate by a judgment obtained in action against the vendor commenced after the purchase. (See per Rommer J., in MERCANTILE INVESTMENT AND GENERAL TRUST COMPANY V. RIVER PLATE TRUST LOAN AND AGENCY COMPANY (1894) 1 CH. D. 578 AT PAGE 595). In Spencer-Bower on Res Judicata (Second Edition) at P. 210, the following statement of law appears: –
where privity of estate is set up as the foundation of estoppels per rem judicata, the title relied on to establish such privity must have arisen after the judgment on which res judicata is based, or at least after the commencement of the proceedings in the course of which judgment was given.?”
In the instant case, it is on record and not in dispute that the Appellant purchased the Filling Station through the 5th Respondent on 9th May, 2013 at the consideration of N20,000,000.00. See pages 8 and 9; page 84 lines 4-8 of the record. It is also undisputed that the ruling in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14 was delivered on 12th August; 2014. Not in contention too, is the fact that the Appellant was not a party in the proceedings of the referred motion yet, the trial Court held that the Appellant was bound by the ruling in the said Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02/14 as he was a party by privy because he derived his root of title to the filling station from the 5th Respondent who acted as an agent of 2nd & 3rd Respondents who were parties to the ruling in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14. See pages 84 – 85 line 5 of the records.
There is no gain saying that the Appellant purchased the Filling station long before the ruling that set aside the judgment in execution of which he purchased the filling station. See pages 8, 9 & 18-24 of the records. This is to say that the purchase predates the decision of the Court in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14.
For a purchaser to be a party by privy, the purchase must have taken place after the judgment or the ruling against his vendor. In order words a prior purchaser cannot be a party by privy in a judgment obtained against his vendor after the purchase. See: OMIYALE V. MACAULAY & ORS (supra). I therefore hold that the 1st Respondent having filed motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14; and its subsequent ruling made long after the Appellant had purchased the filling station, the Appellant is not and cannot be held a party by privy to the ruling setting aside the judgment and the order of the attachment. The learned trial Judge was therefore in error when he held that the Appellant was privy to the party in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14.
With the facts and circumstances of the suit leading to this appeal and the issue under consideration, the argument of the learned counsel for the Respondents that the Appellant is bound by the ruling of the trial Court in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14 since the claim of the Appellant to the auctioned A.B.M. Filling Station was as a result of the Judgment in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011, which was set aside by the trial Court with all that followed the Judgment as it affects the 1st Respondent including the auction, cannot stand in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in OMIYALE V. MACAULAY & ORS (supra).
As well, the cases of SALEH V. MONGUNO & ORS (2006) LPELR-2992 (SC); MACFOY V. U. A. C. LTD (1962) AC 152 AT 160; OKAFOR V. A G ANAMBRA STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (PT. 200) 659 are not relevant to this issue. This is particularly so since in law, a person who is not a party to a case cannot be bound by decisions arising there from. This is founded on the latin maxim – res inter alios, acta alteri nocere non debet meaning things done between others ought not to injure an outsider. See: COKER V. SANYAOLU (1976) 10 NSCC 566 AT 573; ABUBAKAR V. B. O. & A. P. LTD (2007) 18 NWLR (PT. 1066) 319; E EZEBILO ABISI V. VINCENT EKWEALOR (SUPRA); CLAY INDUSTRIES (NIG.) LTD. V. ADELEYE AINA (SUPRA); ANYAWOKO V. OKOYE (2010) 5 NWLR (PT. 188) 497.
I therefore resolve issue 1 in favour of the Appellant.
SUBMISSIONS ON ISSUE 2
“whether the lower Court was right when it held that the act of the 5th Respondent of dispossessing the Appellant of the filling station and delivered it to the 1st Respondent may be wrong but not void.”
Mr. Haruna referred to the ruling of the trial Court in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/14 which he noted was declaratory in nature. He submitted that the act of the 5th Respondent in enforcing a non-executory but declaratory order is void, illegal and abuse of judicial process. The learned counsel contended that while an executory Judgment must contain an order directing the parties to do or abstain from doing particular act (s); in a declaratory order, there is nothing to be enforced. See: OLORUNTOBA – OJU V. DOPAMU (2008) ALL FWLR PT. 411 PG. 810 AT837PARAS B-G.
He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and enter Judgment for the Appellant and grant the relieves sought in his originating summons as contained in page 2 of the records.
Mr. Dawud, learned counsel for the Respondents referred this Court to paragraphs f, g, h, I, j, k, L, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t at pages 45 47 of the records. The learned counsel further referred the Court to the ruling of the trial Court in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014 at pages 18 to 24, particularly its holding at page 24 of the records to agree with the learned counsel for the Appellant that the orders in the ruling were declaratory in nature. However, Mr. Dawud invited the Court to the holding of the trial Court in the ruling that any action taken pursuant to the judgment in Suit No. BQHC/MG/CV/61/2011 and the attachment order were all set aside. He then submitted that the auction of the A.B.M. Filling Station was set aside by the said ruling of the trial Court and he urged this Court to so hold.
The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that it was for the fact that the auction was set aside that the 1st Respondent applied to the 5th Respondent to return A.B.M. filling station to him being the owner of the said property. Consequent upon the application made, the 5th Respondent returned the A.B.M. filling station to the 1st Respondent.
He submitted therefore that the act of the 5th Respondent was right in law. He referred to: Section 41 (1); 44 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended to further submit that no citizen may be deprived of his property without due process of law. He also referred to: SALEH V. MONGUNO & ORS (2006) (SUPRA) AT PP 44 TO 45.
He finally urged the Court to hold that the returning of the A.B.M. Filling Station to the 1st Respondent was proper in Law.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE 2
The parties are ad idem that there is a distinction between an excutory judgment and declaratory judgment. Equally there is no dispute that the decision in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014; is declaratory in nature. The law is very well settled that in an action, whatever its nature and no matter how it is framed, the party who approaches the Court obtains the order he seeks. The order may be declaratory or executory. It is executory where the order declares the rights of the party before the Court and then proceeds to enjoin the Defendant to act in a certain way. It is declaratory when it merely proclaims the existence of a legal relationship, but contains no specific order to be carried out by or enforced against the Defendant. CARRENA & ORS V. AKINLASE & ORS. (2008) LPELR 833 (SC); AKUNNIA V. A.G ANAMBRA STATE & ORS. Furthermore, whilst an executory judgment is capable of immediate enforcement, a declaratory judgment gives no such right. The right which a declaratory judgment confers on the Plaintiff can only be enforceable if another and subsequent judgment, howbeit relying on the rights it declared, so decrees. Such a subsequent judgment conferring the power of execution is executory. The date of enforceability must be the date of the subsequent (executory) judgment and not the earlier judgment, which is merely declaratory. OGUNLADE V. ADELEYE (1992) LPELR 2340 (SC).
The Appellant’s contention herein is that the enforcement of the declaratory decision of the trial Court was void. The trial Court agreed with the Appellant that the act was improper but voidable and not void ab initio. Since a declaratory order confers unenforceable right to a party except and until there is a subsequent executory judgment that makes the earlier enforceable at such a later date the executory judgment was entered. It means by the ruling of the trial court in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014; there was nothing for the 5th Respondent to enforce; and there being nothing, the 5th Respondent executed nothing meaning that any purported execution of a non-executory judgment was null and void as the same was not in existence.
I therefore do not agree with the learned trial Judge that the act of the 5th Respondent in handing over possession of the A.B.M. Filling Station to the 1st Respondent based on the declaratory decision of the trial Court without a subsequent decision decreeing the execution of the declarations of rights in the ruling in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014 is merely voidable. I hold that the act is void in law moreso since I had earlier on in this judgment held that the Appellant was not privy to the party in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02m/2014; and was therefore not bound by its ruling. The argument of the 1st Respondent that the fact that the trial Court set aside the judgment in suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 and the ensuing order that led to the auction of the filling station made the act of the 5th Respondent valid flies in the face of the fact that the said order setting aside the auction did not make the declaratory orders sought for by the 1st Respondent and so granted by the trial Court executory in that the order setting aside the auction and other acts did not direct nor contain a specific order to be carried out by or enforced against the parties on who the Appellant was alleged to be privy to.
From all I have said above, I also resolve issue 2 in favour of the Appellant.
The appeal therefore possesses merits and the same succeeds and is allowed. I therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court of Borno State, in Suit No: BOHC/MG/CV/25/17 delivered on 15th January, 2018.
Consequently, I make the following declarations:
1. A declaration that the Claimant has purchased an A.B.M Filling station of Bama Road Maiduguri in an auction sale conducted by the 5th Defendant on 09/05/2017 in execution of a judgment in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 OF 22/10/2012
2. A declaration that the Claimant is not a party to the ruling in motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02M/2014 which set aside the judgment in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/61/2011 OF 22/10/2012.
3. A declaration that the action of 5th Defendant acting on the ruling in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02M/2014 of taking over the A.B.M Filling Station from the Claimant and handed it over to the 1st Defendant is illegal, void and abuse of Judicial process
4. An order directing the 5th Defendant to reverse the parties to their position before the purported enforcement of a ruling in Motion No. BOHC/MG/CV/02M/2014 on 15/03/2017.
I make no other as to cost.
TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A.: I read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion allowing the appeal.
MUSDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the judgment of my learned brother, UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA just delivered and I agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached that there is merit in this appeal and should be allowed. I allow the appeal and abide by the consequential declarations therein.
Appearances:
K.M. Haruna, Esq. For Appellant(s)
M.Y. Usman, Esq. holding the brief of K.A. Dawud for 1st Respondent.
Z. Hamza for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents For Respondent(s)
