CAPTAIN DANIEL HOSEA GANGUM v. ALHAJI MORUFU DOSUNMU
(2019)LCN/13485(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 13th day of June, 2019
CA/L/829/2015
RATIO
LAND LAW: DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN LAND BOUNDARIES
In HYACINTH ANYANWU v ROBERT ACHILIKE MBARA & ANOR (1992) LPELR ? 516 (SC), the Apex Court held that it?s the duty of a plaintiff to produce evidence to ascertain boundaries of land thus;
It is clear from the pleading, plan and oral evidence that what was in dispute between the parties, who own lands adjacent to each other, is the ascertainment of the boundary between them. That being the case, it behoved each party, particularly the plaintiffs, to prove the boundary that was being claimed See: Omoregie v Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 5) 41, 60.per OGUNDARE, JSC (PP. 34 -5, PARAS. F ? A). See alsoAWOTE & ORS v OWODUNNI & ANOR (1986) LPELR ? 660 (SC); EMIRI & ORS v IMIEYEH & ORS (1999) LPELR 1132 (SC); AKANIYENE & ORS v ETIM (2012) LPELR 9792 (CA); OKUNRIBOYE v OSUMA (2016) LPELR 41373 (CA).PER ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.
COURT: DUTY OF A COURT OBLIGATION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS AND PRACTICES THAT ARE COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN A LOCALITY
The Court is entitled to take judicial notice of facts and practices that are common knowledge in a locality, in OGAR v ILOETOMMA (2015) LPELR ? 40694 (CA) it was held that;
A Court is entitled to take judicial notice of these facts that are common knowledge by virtue of S. 124 (1) (a) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that ? ?(1) proof shall not be required of a fact that the knowledge of which is not reasonably open to question and which is ? (a) common knowledge in the locality in which the proceeding is being held, or generally, or (2) The Court may acquire in any manner it thinks fit knowledge of a fact to which Subsection (1) of this section refers, and shall take such knowledge into account.PER ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TOBI EBIOWEI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CAPTAIN DANIEL HOSEA GANGUM Appellant(s)
AND
ALHAJI MORUFU DOSUNMU Respondent(s)
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered by Honorable Justice M. A. Dada (Mrs) on the 24th day of September, 2014 where the Appellant?s claims were dismissed and 1st Respondent?s counter claim upheld.
The Appellant dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment lodged an appeal against same vide his Notice of Appeal dated 7th day of November, 2014.
The Appellant?s brief of argument dated and filed on 29th March, 2017, but deemed on 6/6/17, the brief was settled by Samuel Y. Adda, Esq of S.Y. Adda & Co; and 8 issues were raised for determination;
i. Whether the learned trial judge was right in failing to determine all the issues formulated for determination and submitted before the trial Court.
ii. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the totality of the Claimant?s claim failed woefully and thereby dismiss without properly evaluating the evidence adduced before it, particularly the uncontroverted evidence of CW1, CW3 and CW4 to the effect that the Okiji family sold,
1
assigned and put the Claimant in possession of the disputed land.
iii. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Claimant?s claim is ?adverse and illusory? without considering the pleadings before it to the effect that the identity of the disputed land is not in issue.
iv. Whether the lower Court was right to give weight or probative value to the composite plan (admitted as exhibit D5) and rely on same without considering the evidence surrounding its defects/imperfections to hold that the disputed land is right inside the larger expanse of land covered by the said exhibit D5.
v. Whether the lower Court was right to give weight or any probative value to the Defendant/Counterclaimant?s purchase receipt (admitted as exhibit D4) to sustain his claim for declaration of title considering the material contradiction on its date as well as the illegality prevalent on the face of it.
vi. Whether from the totality of evidence before the lower Court, the Defendant/Counterclaimant discharged the burden of providing his claim for declaration of title and entitled to the reliefs sought in the Counterclaim.
2
vii. Whether the judgment of the trial Court is not against the weight of evidence.
viii. Whether the judgment of the lower Court is not liable to be set aside and retried considering the incomplete or missing part thereof and nature of the judgment.
The 1st Respondent?s brief on the other hand was filed 22/5/18 and deemed 23/5/18 and was settled by M. M. M. Onilenla Esq of Bolaji Onilenla & Co, where five issues were raised by the 1st Respondent;
1. Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Court is not justified in dismissing the Appellant?s claim in its entirety? (Distilled from Grounds i, iv, vii, xi & xii of the Notice of Appeal)
2. Whether the 1st Respondent has the duty to prove a better title of traditional ownership or/and production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed, for his counterclaim to succeed? (Covers Grounds ii, iii and viii of the Notice of Appeal)
3. Whether the 1st Respondent amended his pleading more than twice during the trial, contrary to the provision of Order 24(1) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012? (Encapsulates
3
Ground v of the Notice of Appeal)
4. Whether having regard to the state of the pleadings of the parties, the identity of the disputed land was put in issue?
5. Whether the lower Court discountenanced the final written address of the Appellant, thus breaching his right to fair hearing? (Covers Ground x of the Notice of Appeal)
SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT
The Appellant on issue one submitted that a Court is obliged to determine all issues for determination formulated before it. He relied on BAYOL v AHEMBA (2001) 2 WRN PG 109 AT PG 117; NIPOL LTD v BIOKU INVESTMENT & PRO. CO. LTD (1992) 3 NWLR (PT 232) PG 77 AT PG 747, and that the lower Court failed to determine all the issues before it, he urged that the Judgement be set aside.
On issue 2, the Appellant submitted that in the lower Court it tendered a survey plan with NO. DOT/LA/1382/180/2011 dated 01/11/11 to clearly identify the disputed land with its features, and to reflect boundaries and it was admitted as Exhibit 2. He relied on AGBEJE v AJIBOLA (2002) 2 NWLR (PT. 750) 127 AT 147, PARA C – F, the Appellant also submitted in addition that he tendered
4
the family purchase receipt dated 26th April, 2008 issued by the Okiji family on behalf of their family and the Oseni family as owners of the said land, he also tendered a Deed of Assignment dated the 1st November, 2011 admitted as Exhibit 3. He stated that it is settled law that the production of title is one of the recognized methods of proving title to Land, he relied on IDUNDUN v OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 -10 SC 227 AT 246; PASTOR J. AKINOLU AKINDURO v ALHAJI IDRIS ALAYA (2007) 15 NWLR (PT. 1057) 312, 2.
He lastly submitted on issue 2 that the lower Court ought not to have considered Exhibit 4 to conclude that CW3 and CW4 were not credible witnesses because no evidence was led on it. He relied on the principle of law that states that; the evidence given in a previous case cannot be accepted as evidence in subsequent proceedings and such evidence has no greater value than to be used in cross examination of the witness as to his credit, he called on the cases of DADA v BANKOLE (2008) 5 NWLR (PT. 1079) 26 AT 62, PARAS D ? E; MONOPRIX (NIG) LTD v OKENWA (1995) 3 NWLR (PT. 383) 325 AT 342.
The Appellant on issue 3 submitted that the trial Court went
5
on a voyage of its own, when it stated that the Claimant?s claim was ?adverse and illusory?. From the pleadings of the parties, the identity of the disputed land was not in issue. He further submitted that the different names ascribed to the said land or to the area where it is located is not fatal to the case, he relied on OJO v AZAMA (2001) 4 NWLR (PT. 702) 57 AT PG 68 PARA. C; AROMIRE v AWOYEMI (1972) NSCC PAGE 133 AT 121 LINES 35 -40; AGBOMEJI v BAKARE (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 564) 1 SC; IGE v ADEGBOLA (1998) 10 NWLR (PT. 571) 662 CA.
On issue 4, it was the submission of the Appellant that the lower Court was wrong when it placed reliance on Exhibit D5 and concluded that the Claimant?s land does not share boundary with the Oseni family, that the Claimant?s land is right inside the larger expanse of land covered by the said Exhibit D5. The Defendant/Respondent?s surveyor, during the cross examination, stated that he did not visit the disputed land before producing the said composite plan (Exhibit D5). That the Defendant contrary to the decision of the trial Court testified that he shared boundary with an old man who
6
was late. This testimony supported the evidence of the claimant and not the Defendant.
The Appellant submitted on issue 5, that it is not the duty of the Court to make case for parties but to determine the case of parties as presented before it, with available evidence adduced there from, to decide the matter either way, he relied on ABRAHAM MODECHAI ZABUSKY v ISRAEL AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1070) 109 AT 125. He submitted that, it is the duty of every Court to uphold the laws of the land to give effect to an existing statute whether cited by counsel or not. A statutory provision cannot be ?waived?, he relied on the A.G ADAMAWA STATE v WARE (2009) 1 SC 112. The trial judge ought to determine the case of the parties as it is and not to abhor illegality as acceptable practice in a bid to make a case for any party in a matter.
On the 6th issue, the Appellant submitted that in the counterclaim which in law is a separate claim, the defendant became the claimant and has a statutory duty to prove the identity of the land and not rely on the weakness of the Defendant (Claimant) in the counterclaim.
7
He relied on UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v JERIC NIGERIA LTD (1998) 2 NWLR (PT. 536) AT 63. He went further to state that the 1st Defendant failed to plead the identity of the land with certainty and he relied on BASSIL v FAJEBE (2001) 11 NWLR (PT. 725) 592 SC AT PAGES 612 613 PARAS H – D
The Appellant on issue 7 submitted that it is trite law that a trial Court evaluate and not summarize the evidence before making a decision. He relied on USIOBAIFO v USIOBAIFO (2000) 14 WRN PG 70 AT PG 84; NDEM v NKPINANG (2001) 2 NWLR (PT. 698) PG 451 AT PG 462; SAVANNAH BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v CBN (2009) 6 NWLR (PT. 1137) PG. 237 AT 293 PARAS. C ? E.
He went on to submit that it is settled law that an un-contradicted evidence would be accepted by the Court, and evidence of DW2 supported the claimants evidence that the disputed land shared boundary with someone he identified to be the Oseni family, he cited EZEANAH v ATTA (2004) 4 MJSC 1 at 7.
He stated that the Dw2’s evidence which contained contradictions as to the date of purchase and the pleading ought to be thrown out, he cited MBANI v BOSI (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 991) 400 At 412, PARA B ? C; DENNIS IVIENAGBOR v HENRY OSATO BAZUAYE
8
(1999) 6 SCNJ AT 235 -244. He also submitted that parties are bound by their pleadings and whatever is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue. He relied on ADELEKE v IYANDA (2001) 13 NWLR (PT. 729) 1 AT 21, PARAS. F ? G; ADEMESO v OKORO (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 945) 308, PARAS F ? G.
On issue 8, the Appellant submitted that the Judgment was incomplete or part of it was missing, he referred to pages 239 and 240 of the Records of Appeal and the fact that page 12 of the judgment was not contained the CTC issued to him, and he made reference to pages 242 and 243 of the Records of Appeal, and relied on EDJEKPO v OSIA (2007) 8 NWLR (PT. 1037) 635 SC; FADLALLAH v AREWA TEXITILES LTD (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 518) 546 SC; ABIODUN v A.G FEDERATION (2007) 4 FWLR (PT. 398) AT 7145; UBA PLC v S.A.F.P.U (2004) 3 NWLR (PT. 861) 516 CA; IDAKWO v NIGERIAN ARMY (2004) 2 NWLR (PT. 857) 249 CA.
RESPONDENTS SUBMISSION
The 1st Respondent on issue 1, submitted that the inconsistency in the Exhibit 2 (Survey plan) and Exhibit 3 (Deed of Assignment) are irreconcilable conflicts, and the lower Court was right to have invoked
9
the provisions of Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, he relied on BASSIL & ANOR v FAJEBE & ANOR (2000 ? 2006) 6 SCJE 343 AT PP. 351 ? 352, PARAS. A- B; OTTIH v NWANEKWE (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 140) 5550 AT P. 562. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant failed to show the relative position of the disputed land to the boundary of the Okiji and Oseni families; that Exhibit 2 dated 1/11/11 puts the location of the land at Oketir village, off Addo Badore Road, Eti Osa Local Government Area, Lagos State and Exhibit 3 dated 28/3/09 described it as Remlec, off Badore Road, Eti Osa Local Government Council, Lekki peninsular, Lagos. He cited the cases of UDOFIA & ANOR v AFIA & ORS (1940) 6 WACA 216 AT P. 217; AMATA v MODEKWE (1954) 14 WACA 580 AT P. 582; OMOREGIE v IDUGIEMWANYE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 5) 41 AT P. 60 PARAS. A ? C.
He also stated that the lower Court noted the difference between the Deed of Assignment dated 21/2/12 annexed to the bundle of documents tendered as Exhibit 4 on one hand and Exhibit 2 and 3 on the other hand. The beacon numbers in Exhibit 3 are different from the beacon numbers in the claim before the
10
lower Court at Paragraph 14(i) of the statement of claim at Page 3 ? 6 of the Record. Also the beacon numbers in Exhibit 2 are different from the ones referred to in Exhibit 4.
On issue 2, the Respondent submitted that its claim was founded on sale under customary law and it led evidence to that effect. He cited FOLARIN v DUROJAIYE (1988) 2 SC (PT. 11) 104 at P. 127 PARA 15 and ERINOSHO v OWOKONIRAN (1965) NMLR 479 AT P. 483.
He also stated generally, the conditions that must be satisfied in a claim for declaration of title of Land;
?He conceded to the fact that the Respondent in its Amended Statement of Defence that he bought the land in 1984 but however testified that he bought the land in 1977, the provisions of Section 157 of the Evidence Act Exhibit D3 is presumed to have be made under the date it bears, extrinsic oral evidence is admissible to prove otherwise under Section 128 (a) Evidence Act. This is coupled with the fact that under cross examination the respondent explained the apparent contradiction by ascribing the mistake to his lawyer and he further cleared up the contradiction in his re ? examination by stating that
11
Exhibit D3 was dated 10/6/77 on the insistence of the Okiji family representatives that it was the way they sold land because of Lagos State Government. He cited OTUEDON & ANOR v OLUGHOR & 6 ORS (1996 ? 1999) 5 SCJE at P. 403 ? 404, PARAS. J ? C where it was held that a mix up clarified by a witness under cross examination is sufficient to restore the credit of such witness.
On the allegation that the signature/thumbprints on the purchase receipt (Exhibit D3) were forged, the Respondent submits that no iota of evidence was led to prove the alleged forgery. The Respondent rather proved the existence of the purchase receipt and its execution by stating how it was made and executed by the 3 signatories. This evidence was not challenged at all in cross examination, and an unchallenged evidence has the effect of an admission, he cited ITEOGU ESQ v LPDC (2009) 3 CLRN 1 @ P. 10 LINES 2 ? 50 on failure to discharge the burden of proof placed on him in Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act to prove the allegation of crime of forgery beyond reasonable doubt, he relied on FOLAMI v COLE (1990) ALL NLR 310 AT P. 316 ? 317 (SC);
12
ADELAJA v FANOIKI & ANOR (1990) ALL NLR 217 AT P. 228.
The Respondent on issue 3 submitted that the Appellant applied for two amendments in line with the provisions of Order 24 (1) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012, and did not violate Rule 1 of Order 24.
On issue 4, the Respondent posits that the complaint that the 1st Respondent failed to prove the identity of the disputed land is borne out by the pleadings of the parties. The Appellant seeking for a declaration has the primary duty and onus to show clearly the area of land his claim relates to, he relied on BARUWA v OGUNSHOLA (1938) 4 WACA 159 AT P. 160; MOMOH v UMORU (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1270) 217 AT P. 279 PARAS. F ? G (SC). The same onus of proof lies on a counter claimant; he cited KYARI v ALKALI (2001) 32 WRN 88 AT P. 108 LINE 35.
?The parties didn?t join issues on the area, location, boundary or features of the land thus they are deemed to have admitted their different survey plans, thus it is of no consequence that the different names are given to the land or the area where the land is located is called different names does not derogate, alter
13
or change the identity of the land in dispute, he cited MAKANJUOLA v BALOGUN (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 108) 192 AT P. 204 PARA C; P. 201 PARA F; P. 211 PARA D (SC). Thus where there is no issue the question of burden of proof does not arise.
On location, the parties? pleadings were unanimous to the effect that the disputed land is located in Addo Village via Badore.
It was further submitted that in describing the land as 1 in the cross examination as against 1 in the examination in chief has not destroyed the credibility of the witness, he relied on MTN (NIG) COMMUNICATIONS LTD v ESUOLA (2018) LPELR ? 43952 (CA); ZAKARI v MUHAMMED (2017) 17 NWLR (PT. 1594) 18; ODUNLAMI v NIGERIAN NAVY (2013) 12 NWLR (1367) 20 AT PP. 53 ? 54, PARAS. E ? D.
On issue 5, the Respondent stated from the judgment, the lower Court considered the Appellant?s Final address before making its crucial findings. He also stated the opening statement in the judgement of the trial judge didn?t amount to a decision, he cited TOMTEC NIG LTD v FHA (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 509) 400 AT P. 415 SC in defining what a decision is. He urged the Court to hold that
14
the pronouncement of the lower Court is an innocuous observation that has not determined anything against the Appellant and thus doesn?t occasion a miscarriage of justice.
RESOLUTION
I have critically considered the issues raised by both parties and in resolving this appeal, similar issues raised would be resolved together.
Issue one, two and three would be resolved together.
On issue one, the Appellant failed to state in what area the trial judge failed to consider all issues formulated by it for determination.
A perusal of the judgment of the trial judge on page 242 of the Records reveals that the learned trial judge considered all issues formulated before it when it stated in its judgment thus;
Learned counsel, Mr. S. Y. Adda however failed to comply with Order 31 Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court. Therefore, reference will be made to the Final address as the need arises. Nevertheless, he listed 3 facts which are according to him not in dispute thus;
a) The Land in dispute originally belongs to the Okiji family
b) The Land in dispute is situate at Addo village in Eti ? Osa Local Government Area of
15
Lagos State.
c) The claimant was put in possession by the Okiji family and he is in possession of the land in dispute.?
The lower Court therefore did not disregard the issues for determination in its Final Written Address, even though same was not in compliance with Order 31 Rule 3 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules. Therefore, the submission of the Appellant in this respect is in error.
Furthermore, the lower Court contrary to the submission of the Appellants considered the evidence of CW1, CW3 and CW4 in its judgment. In pages 243 -244 of the record, it is obvious that lower Court critically analysed the testimonies of CW3 and CW4 when it described CW3 as a self serving witness? and came to the conclusion at paragraph 4 of page 244 that;
The defendant on the other hand has been able to prove a better title than the claimant on the preponderance of evidence. He has been able to rebut the presumption of ownership the claimant has alleged and has proved to be a better Witness.
On issue 3, from the pleadings of both parties (see paragraphs 5, 7, 8 & 9 of claim at page 106
16
of record, the 2nd amended defence and the paragraph 8b, 9, 11 & 13 counterclaim) it is settled that the identity of the land was not in dispute and both parties submitted in their briefs of argument that the fact that different names were ascribed to the land by the parties is not fatal to the case. The lower Court held thus;
From the foregoing therefore, it will appear that since the identity of the Land in dispute is not in doubt, the claimant?s claim on the same is an adverse and illusory.
The above issues were critically examined in the judgment by the lower Court and Appellant?s decision to raise issues that have been completely settled is an unnecessary venture and a waste of this Courts time.
I therefore resolve the above issues in favour of the Respondent.
The Appellant had tendered Exhibit 2 (Survey Plan) and Exhibit 3 (Deed of Assignment) which had different beacon numbers and were polls apart from each other, with different locations on both documents. The Appellant failed to show the nexus between the disputed land and the boundary of the Okiji and Oseni families.
17
In HYACINTH ANYANWU v ROBERT ACHILIKE MBARA & ANOR (1992) LPELR 516 (SC), the Apex Court held that its the duty of a plaintiff to produce evidence to ascertain boundaries of land thus;
It is clear from the pleading, plan and oral evidence that what was in dispute between the parties, who own lands adjacent to each other, is the ascertainment of the boundary between them. That being the case, it behoved each party, particularly the plaintiffs, to prove the boundary that was being claimed See: Omoregie v Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 5) 41, 60.
per OGUNDARE, JSC (PP. 34 ? 35, PARAS. F ? A). See alsoAWOTE & ORS v OWODUNNI & ANOR (1986) LPELR 660 (SC); EMIRI & ORS v IMIEYEH & ORS (1999) LPELR ? 1132 (SC); AKANIYENE & ORS v ETIM (2012) LPELR ? 9792 (CA); OKUNRIBOYE v OSUMA (2016) LPELR 41373 (CA).
The Appellant only averred that the disputed land is located between 2 boundaries (see paragraphs 3 of statement of claim) and the Appellant is bound to depict the disputed land between the 2 boundaries by way of a composite survey plan. The Respondent?s evidence Exhibit
18
D5 (Composite Plan) adequately covered the essential materials that needed to be proved.
I agree with the lower Court?s evaluation of the evidence adduced in proof of the ownership of the land, that the Defendant had proved a better title and accorded due weight to the composite plan.
The discrepancies as to the date in the purchase receipt and the evidence given by the Defendant during cross examination was one that the lower Court did not feign ignorance of, it considered certain practices in the country in relation to purchase of land in Nigeria in a bid to circumvent the Land Use Acts requirement and payment of charges. The lower Court came to this conclusion after the Respondent admitted that he bought the land in dispute in 1984 though Exhibit D3 (Purchase receipt) showed 10/06/1977, he testified that the Okiji family said that it was the way that land was sold in Lagos. This does not amount to illegality more also it was not pleaded by the Appellant; a Court cannot set up a different case for a party.
The Court is entitled to take judicial notice of facts and practices that are common knowledge in a locality, in
19
OGAR v ILOETOMMA (2015) LPELR ? 40694 (CA) it was held that;
A Court is entitled to take judicial notice of these facts that are common knowledge by virtue of S. 124 (1) (a) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that ? ?(1) proof shall not be required of a fact that the knowledge of which is not reasonably open to question and which is ? (a) common knowledge in the locality in which the proceeding is being held, or generally, or (2) The Court may acquire in any manner it thinks fit knowledge of a fact to which Subsection (1) of this section refers, and shall take such knowledge into account?.
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of perusing the judgment, rendered by His Lordship, ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI ?ADEJUMO, JCA, who meticulously resolved all the issues thrown up in the appeal to my satisfaction.
I have nothing more useful to add. I, too dismiss the appeal for being devoid of merits. Consequently, the judgment delivered by M. A Dada, J., of the Lagos High Court of Justice, on this matter, on 24th September, 2014, is accordingly affirmed.
20
I endorse the order of award of costs, contained in the lead judgment, against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JCA. I agree with the reasons and conclusion reached therein. I have nothing to add but to state the obvious which is that I affirm the decision of the Hon. Justice M. A. Dada (Mrs.) as the appeal lacks merit. I abide by the cost awarded.
21
Appearances:
K. I. SANDE WITH HIM, N. J. MAMZAFor Appellant(s)
CHIBUEZE IGWEFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
K. I. SANDE WITH HIM, N. J. MAMZAFor Appellant
AND
CHIBUEZE IGWEFor Respondent
