PASTOR RUFUS AJILEYE v. MR. ADEDAYO FELIX AWE
(2019)LCN/12744(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 26th day of February, 2019
CA/EK/66/2017
RATIO
TORT LAW: LIBEL
“Where words or statements, are published and found to be offensive, containing untrue or false information, causing injury to the reputation of the person against whom they were published, they are regarded as defamatory. Generally such words are made to another person or persons and calculated to bring the person into hatred, ridicule, contempt, disrepute, odium and to lower the person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society. They can constitute the tort of slander if they were spoken, oral, which includes gestures. They will amount to libel if reduced into writing, which is a permanent form. This form includes, print, photograph, carving, statute and carton. See the cases of CIROMA V. ALI 1999 2 NWLR 590 317, SKETCH V. AJAGBEMOKEFERI 1989 1 NWLR 100 678, ESIKA V. MEDOLU 1997 2 NWLR 485 54, FMB V. ADESOKAN 2003 3 NWLR 19 29, DAURA V. DANHAUWA 2011 ALL FWLR PT. 558 991, ASAA V. OJAH 2015 LPELR-CA/OW/325/2011 and MAMMAN V. SALAUDEEN 2006 ALL FWLR PT. 298 469.” PER ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.
TORT LAW: PROOF OF LIBEL
“In proof of libel, the Claimant must establish the following as stated by the apex Court in the case of GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR V REV PASTOR C. I. AJEH 2011 LPELR-1343 SC: i. The words complained of must have been written;
ii. The publication must be false.
iii. The words must be defamatory or convey defamatory imputation.
iv. The words must refer to the claimant.
v. It must be the defendant who published the words;
vi. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove he was the one referred to in the alleged libel.
See further the cases of SKYE BANK PLC. V. AKINPELU 2010 LPELR-SC 38/2003, SKETCH V. AJAGBEMOKEFERI supra, ONU V. AGBESE 1985 1 NWLR PT. 4 704, SERVICE PRESS LTD. V. NNAMDI AZIKIWE 13 WACA 301 and EMMANUEL BEKEE & ORS V. FRIDAY EBOM BEKEE 2012 LPELR-21270 CA.” PER ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PASTOR RUFUS AJILEYE Appellant(s)
AND
MR. ADEDAYO FELIX AWE Respondent(s)
ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The Judgment of the High Court of Ekiti State by Hon. Justice M. O. Abodunde which was delivered on May 31st 2017, wherein the claim of the Appellant (the Claimant at the Court below) was dismissed for lack of proof as well as the Counter-claim of the Respondent (the Defendant at the Court below) culminated into the instant appeal.
At the Court below, the Appellant vide his amended Writ of summons dated April 1st 2016 and filed April 13th 2016 sought the following reliefs:
(a). A DECLARATION that the petition dated 2nd December, 2011 and written to the Area Commander Okesa, Ado Ekiti portraying the Claimant as the ring leader of a notorious robbery gang who robbed him of his valuables such as five pairs of suits, three pairs of shoes valued at about ?250, 000. 00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) and a cash sum of N270, 000. 00 (Two Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira) is most wicked, false, baseless and tendentiously aimed at maligning the reputation of the Claimant.
(b). A DECLARATION that by the said petition of 2nd December, 2011 written by the Defendant and which was published to the men of the Nigeria Police and other members of the public by the Defendant, the Claimant has been portrayed as unworthy of office of a Pastor, dangerous personality, questionable character and thereby soiling the hard -earned reputation of the claimant all of which have exposed the Claimant to unquantifiable humiliation, psychological trauma, agony and public odium.
(c). A SUM OF #5, 000, 000. 00 (Five million Naira) only being damages for libel published of and concerning the Claimant as the ring leader of a notorious robbery gang terrorizing Ado-Ekiti and its environs and who attacked the Defendant’s residence and stole cash and some valuable items belonging to the Defendant on 2nd November, 2011.
(d). A written apology to the Claimant for falsehood which was deliberately published and or spread against the person of the Claimant.
(e). AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from further publishing the aforesaid libel and or similar words of the Claimant.
See pages 113-114 of the printed Record before this Court.
As aforesaid, the Court dismissed the Appellant’s suit. The Respondent in his answer filed a Defence and a Counter-claim. As contained on pages 190-219 of the Record he counter-claimed for;
‘A sum of #20 Million general damages as compensation to the counter-claim for the loss of goods, self-help, embarrassment, humiliation and psychological trauma caused defendant by the actions of the claimant which indeed lowered the reputation of the defendant in the presence of well-meaning people.’
The Counter-claim was also dismissed. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal with four (4) grounds on June 28th 2017.
RELIEFS BEING SOUGHT
i. Allow the appeal.
ii. Set aside the judgment of the lower Court.
iii. Grant the reliefs of the Appellant as per his Writ of Summons before the lower Court.
The facts, briefly, from where the whole matter began as garnered from the printed Record before this Court, are hereunder contained as follows:
The Appellant’s story was that, the Respondent was once his tenant on his three bedroom apartment at 46 Nova Road Ado-Ekiti who was always in arrears of rent. He was given quit notice by the Appellant’s agent, property manager, he refused to yield up possession in spite of promises to vacate, and legal actions withdrawn upon the promise. He was eventually evicted upon the judgment by the Rent Tribunal in Suit No. ADR/269/2010 on April 12th 2011. The Respondent’s attempt to stay execution of the judgment was disallowed by the ruling of the Court on October 27th 2011. Out of frustration, the Appellant used self-help and on November 2nd 2011, went to the apartment to remove some iron sheets in a bid to force him out. Two of his children and another tenant, one Mr. Owoeye, were around at the time about 12 noon.
Thereafter the incident, the Respondent wrote a petition to Oke Ila Police Station, Ado-Ekiti, that, the Appellant robbed his residence and carted away, valuables and cash. He referred to the judgment against him as fake and another petition to the Area Commander on December 2nd 2011 repeating that, the Appellant was the leader of a robbery gang that robbed his residence. The Appellant and his brother were arrested consequently on December 8th 2011 before they were released on bail and his residence was searched. After Police investigations, the petition was found to be baseless and fictitious and the Respondent was arraigned for giving false information on the Appellant to the Police. By the Judgment of the Chief Magistrate Court on September 4th 2015, it was found that, it was all the fabrication of the Respondent. The Court held that, the knowledge of the Appellant’s travails by leadership and members of his Church as well as neighbours caused him embarrassment, disrepute and exposed him to ridicule and opprobrium. See pages 115-121 of the Record.
The Respondent denied that, he petitioned that the Appellant is the leader of a notorious armed robbery gang, that, he stated instead that the Appellant engaged the services of a strike force/gang of eight (8) men to remove the roof of his dwelling house. That, the alleged unpaid rents were loans requested by the Appellant which the Respondent declined to give and that, he refused to pay the property manager of the Appellant because he failed to show his letter of appointment and that the Appellant in turn refused to collect the rent from him. He had to return home from Abuja where he was on study leave upon receipt of two letters of threat to discuss the matter with the Principal of A. O. Akanle SAN & Co, Chief A. O. Akanle, who ensured that, there were no more threat letters from Ademola Adeyemi Esq. of his Law Firm.
Upon increasing the rent from 2008, the Appellant refused to collect 2008 rent which he later collected in the presence of his Counsel, Layi Obisesan Esq. and also served the Respondent with Magistrate?s Court Summons in February 2008. Due to the late payment of 2009 rent, despite permission sought and had in that regard for the delay, the Appellant reported to the Citizens Right Centre of Ekiti State Ministry of Justice, in which office the 2009 rent was paid. After the payment of the increased rent of #72, 000 for 2010, he was written to vacate the premises when the rent would expire December of 2010. The Rent Tribunal found in his favour and ordered that, the apartment be vacated on or before June 30th 2011 but wrongly ordered payment of 2009 rent which was not an issue before it. He appealed to the High Court and during the pendency of the order of stay of execution the Appellant went to remove the roof of the rented apartment in November 2011 while two of his children were in the house. Some valuables were taken away and he reported to the DPO, Oke Ila Police Station. He used the word robbery in his letter to the Area Commander because the Oke Ila Police Station transferred the case to the State CID as a robbery case. It was eventually found that the Appellant wrote to the Police to charge him for giving false information. See pages 190-219 of the Record.
Parties in compliance with the Rules of this Court filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. The Appellant’s brief dated February 13th 2018, filed February 15th 2018 and deemed as properly filed and served on May 7th 2018 was settled by Dr E. K Adetifa Esq. The Respondent’s dated September 10th 2018, filed same date and deemed as properly filed and served on September 20th 2018, was settled by Adedayo Adewunmi Esq. The Appellant responded with a Reply dated September 28th 2018, filed on September 29th 2018 and was deemed as properly filed and served on January 14th 2019.
ISSUES SUBMITTED FOR DETERMINATION
The Appellant submitted the following issues:
i. Whether Exhibit 6 captioned Malicious damage and robbery is defamatory of the Appellant (Ground two).
ii. Whether there was publication of Exhibit 6 by the Respondent (Grounds three and four).
iii. Whether in the circumstance of this suit the lower Court was right to have expunged Exhibits 7 and H already admitted in evidence (Ground one).
The sole issue by the Respondent is as follows:
i. Whether the trial Court was right in law to have dismissed the appellant’s claims.
Having very carefully considered the issues stated above by both parties, one is satisfied that, this appeal will be justly and fairly determined where the three Issues by the Appellant are reformulated and compressed thus into a singular Issue as this Court is empowered to do:
Whether or not Exhibit 6 captioned Malicious damage and robbery is defamatory of the Appellant and whether or not there was publication of same by the Respondent such as to amount to libel, given the evidence before the Court.
See the cases of LATUNDE V. BELLOW LAJINFIN 1989 5 SC 59, UNITY BANK PLC. V. EDWARD BOUARI 2008 7 NWLR PT. 1086 372, and SENATOR NATHANIEL ANAH V. CHIEF ANTHONY EZEWEPUTA 2009 LPELR-8869 CA.
Consequently, this appeal shall be determined on the foregoing adopted singular Issue.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
Dr. Adetifa Esq. for the Appellant submitted that, Exhibit 6 contained clear defamatory words against the hard earned-reputation of the Appellant. That, it speaks for itself being captioned Re: Malicious Damage and Robbery as an allegation of criminality and that the tenancy story contained therein was a mere prelude to the real thrust and import of the Exhibit. He cited in support the cases of UZAMERE V. URHOGHIDE 2011 ALL FWLR PT. 558 P. 839, EKONG V. OTOP 2015 ALL FWLR PT. 764 156 and ACCESS BANK PLC. V. MUHAMMAD 2013 ALL FWLR PT. 701 1627. That, the Respondent knew the said Exhibit 6 to be false and unfounded. He argued that, the Appellant needed not prove actual damage to be entitled to the reliefs sought provided from the estimation of right thinking men, Exhibit 6 has the tendency to lower the Appellant. He submitted that, it was the duty of the Court to construe the words and decide whether or not they are defamatory and cited the case of EKONG V. OTOP supra and that, Section 125A (1) of the Criminal Code should be invoked against the Respondent.
He contended that, Exhibit 6 which is libelous in nature was published by the Respondent to a third party, the Nigeria Police, since it was communicated to the Police vide the Area Commander other than the Appellant himself and that the instant appeal differs from the case of NWADINOBI V. BOTU 2000 9 NWLR PT. 672 220, relied upon by the Court. Therefore, he submitted that, the Court was wrong to have held that there was no publication as the Nigeria Police is a person according to the law and cited Section 18 of the Interpretation Act and the case of OFFOBOCHE V. OGOJA L.G & ANOR 2001 12 SCM 185. Further that, Exhibit 6 became a public document which the public could access by virtue of Section 104 of the Evidence Act and Sections 1 and 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2011. He cited in support the cases ofNSIRIM V. NSIRIM 1990 3 NWLR PT. 138 255. There is no necessity to prove injury, he added and cited in support the case of SALAWU V. MAKINDE 2003 1 WRN 91.
The learned Counsel submitted that the Court was in error to have expunged Exhibit 7, duly certified copy of the judgment of the trial Magistrate Court and Exhibit H, duly certified copy of the judgment of the High Court in Appeal no. HAD/4CA/2015 as having no bearing on the Appellant’s suit and cited in support the case of EGHOBAMIEN V. EGHOBAMIEN 2017 ALL FWLR PT. 889 P. 572 and DIVINE IDEAS LTD. V. UMORU 2007 ALL FWLR PT. 380 P. 1468. Consequently, a miscarriage of justice occasioned against the Appellant which led to the dismissal of his case, he added. In conclusion, he urged that the judgment of the Court below be set aside and judgment be given to the Appellant as per his writ in the suit.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Adedayo Adewunmi Esq. submitted that Exhibit 6 was written to the Police by the Respondent to lodge his complaint against the Appellant who admitted same in paragraph 39 of his amended Statement of claim. He argued that, the estimation of the Appellant was not lowered nor affected in any way in the eyes of all he had to deal with as the PW1-PW3 testified. Therefore, there was no defamation as the Appellant continued to enjoy the reputation he claimed to have lost and cited the case of THE SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. & ANOR. V. AJAGBEMOKEFERI 1989 2 SC PT. II in support. He submitted that, the Court was right to have expunged both Exhibits 7 and H and for the reasons it gave that it cannot pronounce further on the Exhibits that have been litigated upon on trial and appealed upon at a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction as it would amount to gross abuse of the process of Court. In conclusion, he urged that, the appeal be dismissed because the Appellant failed to prove his case at the Court below and therefore it was rightly dismissed.
THE POSITION OF THE COURT
I have very carefully considered the submissions of the parties together with the processes filed by them before this Court for and against the instant appeal. Having so very carefully done, I shall proceed with the sole issue as adopted. For ease of reference it is reproduced hereunder thus:
SOLE ISSUE
Whether or not Exhibit 6 captioned “Malicious damage and robbery” is defamatory of the Appellant and whether or not there was publication of same by the Respondent such as to amount to libel, given the evidence before the Court.
Where words or statements, are published and found to be offensive, containing untrue or false information, causing injury to the reputation of the person against whom they were published, they are regarded as defamatory. Generally such words are made to another person or persons and calculated to bring the person into hatred, ridicule, contempt, disrepute, odium and to lower the person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society. They can constitute the tort of slander if they were spoken, oral, which includes gestures. They will amount to libel if reduced into writing, which is a permanent form. This form includes, print, photograph, carving, statute and carton. See the cases of CIROMA V. ALI 1999 2 NWLR 590 317, SKETCH V. AJAGBEMOKEFERI 1989 1 NWLR 100 678, ESIKA V. MEDOLU 1997 2 NWLR 485 54, FMB V. ADESOKAN 2003 3 NWLR 19 29, DAURA V. DANHAUWA 2011 ALL FWLR PT. 558 991, ASAA V. OJAH 2015 LPELR-CA/OW/325/2011 and MAMMAN V. SALAUDEEN 2006 ALL FWLR PT. 298 469.
Libel has been described as a statement in written form which causes a person to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt i. e. to be shunned or avoided and to be lowered in the estimation of right thinking people in the society or disparaged in his profession or trade or standing in the society. See the cases of OGBONNAYA V. FBN PLC. supra, SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. LTD. V. AJAGBEMOKEFERI supra, GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD. & ANOR. V. AJEH and COMPLETE COMM LTD & ANOR V. ONOH 1998 5 NWLR PT. 549 197.
Common to both slander and libel is that the defamatory words must have been published to a 3rd party, who by law, was not entitled or privileged to hear or receive the offending words as they are damaging to the Claimant?s reputation. See the cases of ASAA V. OJAH supra, DAURA V. DANHAUWA supra, MAMMAN V. SALAUDEEN supra, INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER LTD. V. IDIONG 2012 ALL FWLR PT. 647 677, VANGUARD MEDIA LTD. V. OLAFISOYE 2012 ALL FWLR PT. 634 97, OGBONNAYA V. FBN PLC. 2015 LPELR-CA/L/719/2013, GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD. & ANOR. V. AJEH 2011 LPELR 1343 SC, ESENOWO V. UKPONG 1999 6 NWLR PT. 608 611.
In proof of libel, the Claimant must establish the following as stated by the apex Court in the case of GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR V REV PASTOR C. I. AJEH 2011 LPELR-1343 SC:
i. The words complained of must have been written;
ii. The publication must be false.
iii. The words must be defamatory or convey defamatory imputation.
iv. The words must refer to the claimant.
v. It must be the defendant who published the words;
vi. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove he was the one referred to in the alleged libel.
See further the cases of SKYE BANK PLC. V. AKINPELU 2010 LPELR-SC 38/2003, SKETCH V. AJAGBEMOKEFERI supra, ONU V. AGBESE 1985 1 NWLR PT. 4 704, SERVICE PRESS LTD. V. NNAMDI AZIKIWE 13 WACA 301 and EMMANUEL BEKEE & ORS V. FRIDAY EBOM BEKEE 2012 LPELR-21270 CA.
To ascertain whether the publication complained of in an action for libel is defamatory, the Court would apply the test whether a reasonable man or persons in contact with the publications would understand them in a libelous sense. The reaction of a third party to the offending publication and his impression of the Claimant is what matters and of importance in this regard, and not the Claimant?s impression of himself. See the cases of SKYE BANK PLC. & ANOR V. AKINPELU supra, CHIEF NSIRIM V. NSIRIM 1990 3 NWLR PT. 138 285, OGBONNAYA V. FBN PLC. supra, AROMOLARAN V. AGORO 2014 LPELR-24037 SC 46-47 and IWUEKE V. IBC 2005 17 NWLR PT. 955 447.
Clearly the aspect of defamation under consideration herein is libel. Exhibit 6 is a document, meaning that it has been reduced into writing, which is a permanent form. The obvious question then follows, whether Exhibit 6 is defamatory. The Court below found thus:
The totality of the evidence before me is that although the defendant wrote a letter maliciously against the claimant to the police knowing same to be false, the Claimant admitted during cross-examination that he equally wrote a letter complaining about the suspicious movement of the defendant to the police.
None of the parties have shown the Court any evidence of publication in the newspaper other than petitions written to the police authorities?
The totality of the evidence before me is not in support that the Claimant?s reputation has been lowered by any right-thinking person. I do not have any concrete evidence to establish low ratings of the Claimant in his personal and or professional or even pastoral life.
The totality of the evidence of the Claimant do (sic) not tally with the reliefs sought.
See page 425 of the Record. Further on page 426 (which is the first of the two as there is wrong pagination), the Court concluded as follows:
The Claimant failed woefully to show particulars of loss of self-esteem and I so hold.
In the main, the content of the alleged libelous petition by the Respondent for size and volume cannot be reproduced verbatim however, the essential part is as follows:
‘The act of Robbery
It was a surprise notwithstanding the process before the High Court and the petition of Mr. Ajileye R. O. to the Chief Judge both yet to be determined, that Mr. Ajileye R. O. engaged the services of a gang of eight men to remove the roof of my residence at No. 46, NOVA Road, Ado-Ekiti and which they did removed (sic) on November 2nd 2011 at 1300 hours or thereabout.
They did not stop at that, the gang or strike force came with all sorts of dangerous weapons like cutlasses, iron bar, hammer, saw blades and so on and chased out the children at home after entering the premises and entered the house and took away together with the iron sheets removed from the roof the following valuables;
1. 5 (five) number pairs of suits.
2. 3 (three) pairs of shoes all valued at about #250,000.00 and
3. A sum of #270,000.00 cash.
The total value of items taken is #520,000.00 only…”
The case was reported to Okela Police Station on 2nd November 2011 and Mr. Ajileye R. O. was arrested for interrogation where he later confessed that he was the one who engaged the services of the gang….
Sir I wish your command to further carry out full investigation into this matter for my security and that of the general public because for someone to have a gang or strike force is a serious matter therefore, I am suggesting that:
1. Mr. Ajileye R. O. should produce members of his gang… See pages 318 -319 of the Record.
Having very carefully considered the findings and conclusion reached by the Court in the foregoing, one agrees entirely with the afore stated position of the Court that none of the parties and in particular with regard to the instant appeal, the Appellant herein, it would appear, showed that there was publication of what was written about him.
That, the material complained of by the Appellant existed is not in doubt, in other words, that the Respondent actually wrote such material about the Appellant, was not in contention. Further, as found herein, it was indeed forwarded to the Area Police Command as a complaint, report or petition against the Appellant. The question is was there a publication of the report or complaint made by the Respondent against the Appellant which was forwarded to the Police Area Command and was it defamatory of the Appellant, to constitute and amount to publication and a necessary ingredient to prove libel. The answer is clearly in the negative given the position of the law on libel as afore stated.
The law which is settled and as upheld in plethora of authorities by this Court and the apex Court is as clearly stated by this Court in the case of OSAYANDE v. ETUK 2008 1 NWLR PT. 1068 211, thus:
“Members of the public have a duty to complain of another to the police, and the police have a duty to receive the information. The duty to receive the information may be legal or moral. The occasion is privileged, and no publication of libel is made in such event. In the instant case, the police from commissioner to Inspector in Lagos and Uyo, had a legal duty to receive complaints from members of the public including the appellant on a privileged occasion.”
per Omage JCA and per Ngwuta JCA the Court stated further therein:
It will be a serious setback in the investigation and prevention of crime in this country to hold, as the Court below did hold, that the assignment of a complaint by a superior, to a subordinate police officer for investigation amounts to publication of libel in the complaint to the Investigating police officer for the purpose of damages for libel. Citizens of this nation who have genuine grounds for complaint to the police will out of fear of being held liable in damages for libel, think hard and twice before making a complaint to the police and society wilt be worse off for it.
Further in that light, this Court answered in the negative per Yargata Byenchit Nimpar JCA in the case of ACCESS BANK PLC. V. AJAYI 2018 LPELR-43813 CA on the question whether a complaint or petition to the Nigeria Police qualify as a publication to a third party. See further the cases ofGBAJOR V. OGUNBIREGUN 1961 ALL NLR 853 856, MAMMAN V. SALAUDEEN 2005 18 NWLR PT.958 478, PASTOR BODE AJAYI V. PRINCE SUNDAY AKINTAN FAYAN 2014 LPELR- 24344 CA and MONDAY NWADINOBI V. MRS MARY BOTU 2000 9 NWLR PT. 672 220.
If the foregoing be the case, it therefore means that, the Appellant failed to establish that the Respondent published the alleged defamatory report and that it was not communicated to any third party, as the Area Police Command, by virtue of its Statutory position, duty and responsibility cannot be regarded as one. To give evidence that the material in focus is defamatory is not enough as the publication of such material is fundamental, must be pleaded and testified before libel can be found as proved and established. See the case of OTOP V. EKONG supra. The Police by law is entitled and privileged to hear or receive such report, petition or complaint from the public against one another.
In the light of the foregoing the sole Issue herein is resolved against the Appellant. Consequently, the appeal cannot be allowed, it therefore fails. The Judgment of the Ekiti State High Court delivered by Hon. Justice M. O. Abodunde on May 31st 2017 is hereby affirmed accordingly.
AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, E. O. WILLIAMS-DAWODU, JCA and I agree that the appeal cannot be allowed, it therefore fails.
The judgment of the Ekiti State High Court delivered on May, 31st 2017 by Hon. Justice M. O. Abodunde is hereby affirmed.
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
Dr. Emmanuel Adetifa, Esq. with him, Anthony A. Ejere, Esq.
For Appellant(s)
Adedayo Adewunmi, Esq. with him, Miss Kehinde AdegbuyiroFor Respondent(s)
