SYLVESTER EJIAFA v. MR. ALFRED AMBROSE EJIAFA
(2018)LCN/12423(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 11th day of May, 2018
CA/OW/41/2011
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: DUTY OF THE COURT
“Indeed, it is the primary duty of the trial Court to make foundational findings in a case, based on the evidence presented before it. And where a trial judge had dutifully and religiously carried out his primary responsibility, an appellate Court is precluded from interfering with the finding and/or decision of the trial judge.” PER MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.
Before Their Lordships
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYEJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SYLVESTER EJIAFAAppellant(s)
AND
MR. ALFRED AMBROSE EJIAFARespondent(s)
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal was filed against the decision of the High Court of Imo State sitting at Mgbidi (hereinafter referred to as the lower Court) delivered by Hon. Justice K. A. Ojiako, J., on the 6th day of December, 2010. The said decision pertained to Suit No. HOU/50/2003.
The suit which led to the instant appeal was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) wherein he sought for the grant of the following reliefs:
(a) Declaration that the plaintiff is the head and ofo holder of the family of Ambrose EjiafaJilezi (Late) of Umuezelobe UbalazuAmiri in Oru East Local Government Area within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in accordance with Amiri native law and custom.
(b) Declaration that the plaintiff being the only surviving son of late Ambrose EjiafaJilezi is the heir to his father’s property under Amiri native law and custom.
(c) Perpetual Injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their agents, privies and servants from conniving with and/or fronting the 1st Defendant as the son of Ambrose EjiafaJilezi and denying the plaintiff of his rights in the said family under the Amiri native law and custom.
(d) N1,000,000.00 (ONE MILLION NAIRA) being damages for trespass committed by the defendants over UKUSHI EJIAFA land at Umuezelobe Ubalazu Amiri aforesaid.
(e) Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies, servants and workmen from interfering with any property of Late Ambrose EjiafaJilezi.
The surviving appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) in reaction filed their (his) statement of defence which was subsequently amended. In reply to the appellant(s) defence, the respondent filed his reply.
The tussle between the parties is with regard to who between the appellant and the respondent is the head of family of one Ambrose Ejiafa Jilezi (late) and should be in control of the said Late Ambrose’s estate. The respondent’s case was that he is the only surviving son of the Late Ambrose and in accordance with their native law and custom, entitled and/or saddled with the responsibility of administering and custody of the late Ambrose’s estate, especially the landed properties. He stated and led evidence in proof of the fact that the appellant is the grandson of the Late Ambrose, begotten by one of the Late Ambrose’s daughters, named Beatrice. The said Beatrice was alleged to have had the appellant out of wedlock and afflicted with insanity up to the time of her death. The respondent further alleged that the hitherto 2nd and 3rd defendants; Innocent Uluoh hatched a nefarious plan to deny him of his rightful position as the head of his father’s family. In his bid to prove his claim, the respondent called four witnesses, among whom was his step sister, Susanna Onyechukwunazor Okoye (Nee Ejiafa) as plaintiff witness No. 3. The said Susanna gave evidence that she is a qualified mid-wife and she personally took the delivery of the appellant when his mother Beatrice, who was also her step sister gave birth to him. He corroborated and/or confirmed the respondent?s claim in all material aspects.
The appellant’s case was that he (the appellant) is the first biological son of the Late Ambrose and that the respondent is not the true son of late Ambrose, that he was conceived two years after his mother had a quarrel with the late Ambrose and she was chased out of the matrimonial home. But that she was allowed to come back with the respondent and was accepted by the late Ambrose because he needed more male issues. The appellant claimed that under their native law and custom that the appellant is the rightful heir to the late Ambrose’s estate. The appellant called a single witness in addition to himself and the erstwhile 2nd defendant, who is now deceased, in a bid to prove their claim. Also, each of the parties tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits to support their respective claims.
At the close of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties filed, exchanged and duly adopted their respective written addresses at the lower Court. Thereafter the case was adjourned for judgment. After considering the case presented by the parties and the evidence adduced in proof thereof, the learned trial judge in a reserved judgment found and held as follows:
In the light of the foregoing evaluation of evidence adduced on both sides, it is only the evidence of CW II which is credible, material, consistent and direct eye witness account. I believe the evidence of the CW II which clearly supports the case of the claimant that the 1st defendant is the son or was begot by Beatrice, the daughter of late Ambrose Ejiafa. She is the only eye witness and her evidence is manifestly uncontroverted, unchallenged and credible. I am therefore bound to accept and believe same. See Jokimi v. Fagije (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) 590 –
In this case it is an admitted fact that the 1st defendant has always lived in the home of late Ambrose Ejiafa from birth. In fact CW III admitted. That late Ambrose Ejiafa accepted him. In this wise, it is obvious that 1st defendant regards the said home of late Ambrose Ejiafa as his home. It is only just, equitable and to ensure justice to the defendant that the claimant in his right as the head/ofo holder and heir to the properties of late Ambrose Ejiafa should adequately accommodate him in the family of late Ambrose Ejiafa like his father did in his lifetime. It is hereby so ordered.
In the final analysis, this suit succeeds partly. Reliefs A, B, C, succeed while relief D fail and accordingly dismissed.
The learned trial judge then concluded, declared and ordered as follows:
(1) The claimant is the head and ofo holder of the family of late Ambrose Ejiafa Jilezi of Umuezeobe Ubalazu Amiri in Oru East Local Government Area within the jurisdiction of this Court in accordance with Amiri native law and custom.
(2) The claimant being the only surviving son of late Ambrose Ejiafa Jilezi is the heir to his father?s property under Amiri native law and custom.
(3) An order of perpetual injunction is hereby decreed restraining the 2nd defendant by himself, agents, privies or servants from conniving with and or fronting the 1st defendant as the son of Ambrose Ejiafa Jilezi late and denying the claimant of his rights in the said family under Amiri native law and custom.
I make no order as to costs.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court rendered above and thus appealed against the same by way of a notice of appeal dated the 10th day of December, 2010 and filed on the 18th day of February, 2011.
The said notice of appeal was later amended and deemed as properly filed and served by the order of this Court made on the 14th day of March, 2016. In accordance with the rules of this Court, the record of appeal was compiled, transmitted and served on the parties. Also, the learned counsel for the parties duly filed and exchanged, their respective briefs of argument.
The appellant’s brief of argument was dated the 22nd day of March, 2016 was filed on the 19th day of April, 2016. The brief of argument was by the order of this Court deemed properly filed and served on the 25th day of April, 2017. The said appellants’ brief was prepared by Chukwuemeka N. Okoro, Esq. On the other hand, the respondent?s brief of argument was prepared by Chris A. Ikwuoma Esq. It was filed on the 26th day of September, 2017 and deemed duly filed and served on the 4th day of October, 2017. In reply to the respondent?s brief of argument, the appellant filed his reply brief on the 6th day of February, 2018.
In determination of this appeal, the appellant’s counsel distilled two issues, which are produced below as follows:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in granting the claimant’s claim? (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7).
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in severing the issue of marriage upon which the Respondent hinged the Pregnancy of Beatrice allegedly resulting in the birth of the 1st Appellant, from the issue of the birth of the appellant and treated the former as tangential on the ground that ‘A child can be born by an unmarried woman? which was not the case of the respondent, thereby making a case for the claimant. (Ground 6). ‘
The learned counsel for the respondent on his own part also crafted two issues for the determination of this appeal. The issues are as follows:
(a) Whether the learned trial judge was right in granting respondent’s claim except relief (d).
(b) Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that a man’s biological son is the one entitled to inherit his ofo and property as against a son born by such a man’s daughter whether married or unmarried.
I have carefully examined the set of issues put forward by the learned counsel for the parties, and I found them materially the same save for the difference in the style of drafting. But I found the set of issues couched by the learned counsel for the respondent to be more apt. However, I am of the firm opinion that the central issue that calls for determination in this appeal is the first issue formulated by learned counsel for the parties. The said issue together with the arguments proffered by the parties in respect thereof has conveniently covered the second issue. Indeed, most of the arguments in respect of Issue 2 are repetition of those already advanced with regard to Issue 1. The Issue 1 is hereby adopted by me towards the determination of this appeal.
ARGUMENT ON ISSUE.
The appellant’s counsel started by stating that the learned trial judge having found and resolved that the respondent could not prove the marriage of Peter Ezinne and Beatrice, daughter of late Ambrose Ejiafa, which is the respondent’s pleading, the learned trial judge was thereby wrong to have gone ahead to grant the respondent’s claims, on the ground, that ‘a child can be born by an unmarried woman’ which was not the case of the respondent.
The learned counsel contended that the substratum of the respondent’s case at the lower Court was that Beatrice the daughter of late Ambrose and one Peter Ezinne were married and the marriage produced the appellant, and that the respondent having been found to have failed to prove the said marriage, his claims have collapsed and the learned trial judge was supposed to have dismissed them, instead, the learned trial judge went on a voyage of discovery by making out a different case for the respondent and granted his claims on the basis thereof. Thus, he submitted that the learned trial judge erred in this respect. He referred us to the cases of Allied Bank Nig. Ltd. v. Akubueze (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 374; Ohiaeri v. Akabeze (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 221) 15 andKatto v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 126 among others.
Also, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the failure of the learned trial judge to dismiss the respondent’s claim after the finding that the respondent has failed to prove the marriage which produced the appellant, has exposed the appellant as a bastard and other psychological and social stigma, contrary to Section 42 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). He further submitted that, the law is trite, ‘that a Court of law cannot countenance proceeding that has the effect of rendering a person ‘a bastard’ which is an absurdity and contrary to all known modern norms and values’. He supported his submission with the case of Mojekwu v. Ejikeme (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 402; Mojekwu v. Mojekwu (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 283 and Ukeje v. Ukeje (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 730) 1234.
Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower Court erred, when it granted leave to the respondent to file a reply to the appellant’s statement of defence. He argued that the respondent as plaintiff is only permitted to file a reply where the appellant is counter-calming and/or raised new issues in his statement of defence. Where the appellant as in the instant case, merely controverted the respondent’s averment, such a respondent is precluded from filing any reply. He referred us to the cases of Unity Bank Plc. v. Bouari (2008) 33 NSCQR (Pt. 2) 129; Oshodi v. Eyifunmi (2000) 7 SC (Pt. 11) 145 and Achike v. Osakwe (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) 641. Thus, the learned appellant’s counsel submitted that the learned trial judge acted wrongly when he relied on facts/evidence elicited pursuant to the said reply.
Again, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial judge was wrong to have placed heavy reliance (without caution) on the evidence of CW. II, Sussana Onyechukwunazor Okoye (Nee Ejiafa), when the appellant has adduced credible evidence of the acrimonious relationship between the mother of the said witness (Elizabeth Ejiafa) and the appellant’s ‘acclaimed’ mother (Virginia Ejiafa) and has demonstrated in evidence that the said witness has exhibited tendency to exert vengeance on the appellant. Thus, he submitted that the lower Court erred by failing to warn itself before placing reliance on the evidence of the said CW II, to enter judgment in favour of the respondent. The learned appellant’s counsel thereby urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant.
In the respondent’s brief of argument, the learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection against the competence of the appellant’s brief of argument. He contended that the stamp utilized by the appellant’s counsel has expired, and that an ‘invalid or expired’ stamp is even worse than no stamp at all. He contended that the said appellant’s brief did not fulfil the provision of Rule 10 (1) to (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct which stipulates that all legal documents or processes must be stamped. He submitted, that ?it is trite law that once a process is not duly filed before a Court, it does not exist in the eyes of the law and as such the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked. In the light of the above, he thereby urged this Court to strike out the appellant?s brief for being incompetent. He supported his contention and/or submission with the cases of Sarkin Yaki v. Senator Abubalar Aliku Bagudu (Unreported) Appeal No. SC/722/15; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) ALL NLR 587 and Adisa v. Mohammed (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 732) 1828.
Also, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower Court was right to have entered judgment in the respondent’s favour and granted him his reliefs (a) ,(c) and (e). He contended that the respondent has established his claim on the preponderance of evidence and was therefore entitled to the grant of his reliefs. It was then argued that the parties were ad idem, that the appellant is not the biological son of the late Mr. Ambrose Ejiafa. He also contended that, in accordance with their custom and tradition, that a biological son of a man takes precedence in sharing his estate and assuming the position of headship of his family, over and above every other person. He maintained that this customary practice was also acknowledged and admitted by the appellant while under cross-examination by the respondent’s counsel.
The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent established with credible evidence, that the appellant was begotten by one of the daughters of the late Mr. Ambrose, Ejiafa, by the name Beatrice. He maintained that the evidence adduced by the respondent in this regard is cogent, credible and unchallenged. Thus, the learned trial judge was right to have relied on the same.
He referred us to the cases of Eze v. State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 429; Uwaifo v. Attorney-General of Bendel State (1982) 1 SC 124/187, Oguma Associated Co. v. IBWA (1988) 3 SCNJ 13 and Jokimi v. Fagije (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) 590 among others. Thus, he submitted that the respondent has established his claim on the preponderance of evidence and the learned trial judge acted appropriately when he entered judgment in favour of the respondent. He thereby urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the respondent.
In the appellant’s reply brief, the learned counsel for the appellant in reply to the respondent’s preliminary objection, stated that the respondent had filed a similar motion on notice dated the 12th day of July, 2018 seeking for the same relief, and he explained to this Court that his secretary mistakenly affixed the expired stamp and seal, thinking it was the extant one. And this Court was convinced with his explanation and validity of the appellant’s brief, hence the respondent counsel withdrew his said motion on 25/4/17 and same was struck out. He further stated that it is thus surprising, that the respondent’s counsel has raised this issue again.
The learned appellant’s counsel stated that he is now in possession of a valid and current seal, if in the event this Court is inclined to favourably consider the objection by the respondent’s counsel.
Also, in the appellant’s reply brief, the learned counsel for the appellant maintained that the failure of the respondent to prove his paternity is fatal to his case, and the learned trial judge acted wrongly when he failed to dismiss the respondent?s case, after he found that the respondent has failed to establish on credible evidence, the exact marriage that produced the appellant. He referred us to the cases of Okoromaka v. Odiri (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 408) 411; Adegbite v. State (2017) LPELR 42585 and Duru v. Duru (2016) LPELR 40444 among others. He concluded by arguing, that the respondent’s act of “suing the Appellant in their father name ‘EJIAFA’ instead of in the purported name of Peter Ezinne is also an acknowledgment which the respondent is estopped from denying”.
Thus, he once again urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant.
Before I delve into the main appeal, let me quickly deal with the preliminary objection raised by the respondent as to the competence of the appellant’s brief of argument and his application that this Court should strike out the said brief. It is pertinent to point out herein, that contrary to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court in the case of Yaki & Anor v. Bagudu & Ors. (2015) LPELR SC. 722/2015, has held that failure of the legal practitioner who signed a process to affix his stamp, does not render the said process incompetent. The effect of such failure was to render the process improperly filed. The improperly filed process does not as a result of the failure of the counsel to affix stamp, become or renders the said process as filed to be completely useless, it can still be remedied.
In the instant case, the appellant did affix a seal on the appellant?s brief argument, however, the seal was discovered to have expired. It is also important to observe that the respondent had earlier raised an objection to the competence of the appellant’s brief vide a motion or notice dated the 11th day of July, 2016 and filed on the 12th day of July, 2016; wherein this issue of stamp was among the grounds raised for challenging the appellant’s brief. It is on record that the said objection was withdrawn by the respondent, after satisfactory explanation from the appellant’s counsel and the objection was later struck out. The respondent’s counsel after the objection was raised gave an impression that he has abandoned his objection, only for him to raise the objection again in the respondent’s brief of argument. This behavioural attitude displayed by the respondent’s counsel does not show good professional courtesy and should be reprimanded, because it is tantamount to a ferocious surprise attack launched from an ambush. Totally and completely unexpected. It is unacceptable.
The above notwithstanding, the respondent’s counsel did not properly raise this preliminary objection in accordance with the rules of this Court, as no notice of the objection was shown to have been filed and served on the appellant as required by the rules of this Court. Also, on the 13th day of February, 2018, when this appeal came up for hearing, the notice of this Court was not drawn to the said preliminary objection. Thus, it is deemed as having been abandoned. See the cases of Oforkire v. Maduike (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 812) 166; Awopegba v. Adeloro & Anor. (2012) LPELR 19706 and United Parcel Service Ltd. v. Prince Obot Ufot (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 963) 1. Thus, the preliminary objection having been abandoned, it is accordingly discountenanced and struck out by me.
On the main appeal, having properly examined the record of appeal before me, particularly the parties’ pleadings and evidence led in support thereof, I am of the same viewpoint that the main cause of dispute between the parties is who between both of them is qualified to be the head of their family. That is, according to Amiri or Oru native law and custom, whether a direct biological son of a man is entitled to head the man’s family, over and above a grandchild, even when the grand son is older than the biological son? Contrary to the impression created by the learned appellant’s counsel, this case did not deal on the issue of inheritance. It is purely a family leadership tussle.
The case was not aimed at disinheriting the appellant, and this fact was made vividly clear by the learned trial judge when he ordered that the appellant should not be schemed out in the sharing of Mr. Ambrose Ejiafa Jilezi’s estate (father of the respondent). (See page 151 of the record of appeal.)
The parties are ad idem that according to Amiri native law and custom (their tradition), that the first son of a man becomes his heir and occupies the position of head of the family as diokpala, upon his demise. This fact was copiously pleaded by the respondent in paragraphs 16 and 17 of his statement of claim. The above fact was also admitted by the appellant in his oral evidence, during cross-examination. For purpose of clarification and emphasis the relevant portions of the appellant’s admission in this regard are reproduced as follows:
(18) Question: In Oru, a man’s first biological son is his 1st son/diokpara.
Ans: It is correct.?
(25) Question: Will it also be correct to say that in Oru a man?s diokpara/1st son is the custodian of the man?s ofo and other properties of the man.
Ans: It is correct.?
(See pages 93 and 95 of the record of appeal).
The respondent’s case was that he is the only surviving son of the late Mr. Ambrose Ejiafa and that the appellant is his nephew, begotten by one of his sisters Beatrice Ejiafa. He claimed that the appellant being a grandson to the said late Mr. Abrose Ejiafa, the appellant cannot take precedence over him in the sharing of the late Mr. Ambrose’s estate or be deemed and or regarded as his diokpara 1st son, over him, the respondent, who is the direct biological son of the said late. Mr. Ambrose. The appellant on his own part claimed that he is not a grandson to the late Mr. Ambrose, but his first biological son. The learned trial judge found as a fact and as having been established in evidence, that the appellant is older than the respondent. Also, the learned trial judge after a thorough and painstaking evaluation of the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties, found as a fact that the appellant is the son of Beatrice Ejiafa and that the respondent is the biological son of late Mr. Ambrose EjiafaJilezi.
In arriving at this conclusion, the learned trial judge relied mainly on the detailed evidence of one Mrs. Susanna Onyechukwunazor Okoye (Nee Ejiafa), the eldest child of the late Mr. Ambrose Ejiafa. The said witness gave a graphic evidence of how both the appellant and the respondent were born. She stated in evidence how she assisted during the delivery of the appellant and how he was provided with the necessary wherewithalls at birth. The evidence of the said witness was direct and unshaken during the prolonged heat and rigours of cross-examination which became somewhat protracted.
Indeed, it is the primary duty of the trial Court to make foundational findings in a case, based on the evidence presented before it. And where a trial judge had dutifully and religiously carried out his primary responsibility, an appellate Court is precluded from interfering with the finding and/or decision of the trial judge. In the instant case, the learned trial judge after due examination of the evidence adduced by each of the witnesses called by both parties and the observation of the demeanour of the witnesses, found the said Mrs. Susanna (Plaintiff’s second witness) as the only credible witness and her evidence believable.
Thus, he accepted and relied on the same in reaching his decision.
The appellant’s counsel contended that the said witness, Mrs. Susanna Onyechukwnazor’s testimony was influenced by vengeance. That she transferred the animosity which her mother had with the appellant’s mother to the appellant, hence, she gave a false evidence. And the learned trial judge did not caution himself before he relied on the witness’s evidence. I have carefully and dutifully examined the appellant’s pleadings, and I found nowhere that this animosity was specifically pleaded. Also, it was established in evidence that the mother of the said witness was already late before the appellant’s mother was married. I do agree with the learned trial judge that a woman who had already died, could not have had any raging animosity with a wife married after her demise. This finding of fact by the learned trial judge was not by any means challenged in this appeal, thus, it is deemed admitted or established and represent the true and factual position of the situation. In the premise, I found the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this respect to be devoid of merit and accordingly discountenanced.
Also, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the declaration of the respondent as the heir or diokpara of late Mr. Ambrose Ejiafa, has in the main portrayed the appellant as a bastard and constituted a breach of his fundamental right from discrimination as guaranteed by Section 42 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). It is pertinent to point out herein that both parties were well aware of their custom and tradition as it relates to a son succeeding his father. In fact, they both pleaded and founded their respective claims thereon. Also, I do not see any form of discrimination with regard to the established facts of this case. There was no order that the appellant should be disinherited or denied due entitlements if any for not being a biological son of late Mr. Ambrose. The case was merely a question of proper ranking of succession under the native law and custom, which the appellant expressly subscribed to. It is thus too late in the day for the appellant to be crying foul with regard to an act which he expressly admitted, only because the case did not go in his favour as he planned.
Thus, all the authorities cited by the appellant’s counsel in alleging discrimination against the appellant, particularly the Supreme Court cases of Mojekwu v. Ejikeme (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 402 and Ukeje v. Ukeje (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 730) 13323 are inapplicable in the given circumstances of the instant case. The cases pertained largely to the unconstitutionality of discriminating against a party based on the circumstances of birth and sex respectively. It did not in any way relate to the right of ascension or assumption to the headship of a family, particularly between a son and grandson. It has been borne out by the record, that the parties herein, have submitted themselves to the application and operation of their said native law and custom. Thus, this contention is also found by me to be unappealing and it is accordingly discountenanced.
In the final analysis, I am of the firm opinion that the decision reached by the learned trial judge was based on credible evidence adduced before him by the parties, and that the said decision was correct and proper, both in law and on the basis of evidence on the record of appeal placed before us. This is more so, because, the appellant has failed to demonstrate, that the decision is perverse and/or ran foul of an established principle of the law. In the light of this, this issue is hereby resolved in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.
Having resolved the issue(s) formulated for the determination of this appeal in the manner stated above, this appeal is hereby found by me to rankle in being unmeritorious and it is accordingly dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the lower Court coram: Hon. Justice K. A. Ojiako, J., delivered on the 6th day of December, 2010 in Suit No. HOU/50/2003 coupled with the consequential orders made therein are hereby affirmed by me. I do not feel inclined to make an order with regard to costs in respect of this appeal.
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.: I agree with the reasoning and conclusions of my learned brother, M.A OREDOLA JCA, in the lead judgment that this appeal is devoid of merit, and should be dismissed.
I too dismiss it and abide by the Consequential orders in the lead judgment.
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.: I entirely agree.
Appearances:
Chukwuemeka Okoro, Esq. with him, Ifeanyi Ekezie, Esq.For Appellant(s)
C. A. Ikwuoma Esq.For Respondent(s)
