ABDULLAHI & ANOR v. RABI & ORS (2020)

ABDULLAHI & ANOR v. RABI & ORS

(2020)LCN/14817(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, November 19, 2020

CA/S/93/2019

RATIO

APPEAL: WHEN WILL AN APPELLATE COURT REFUSE TO CONSIDER AN ISSUE

An appellate Court can only refuse to consider an issue if it has no reference to or is not raised from any ground of appeal. See the case of EJOWHOMU V. EDOK – ETER MANDILAS LTD (1986) 5 NWLR (PT. 39) 1 at 16. PER MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.

APPEAL: WHEN WILL A BRIEF OF ARGUMENT FILED IN THE APPELLATE COURT BECOME IRREDEEMABLY BAD

In the same vein, a brief of argument filed in the appellate Court can only become irredeemably bad if arguments therein are not based on any issue or issues or semblance of them, see ORJI V. ZARIA IND. LTD (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 216) 124. PER MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE: EFFECT OF EVIDENCE NOT DERIVED FROM THE PLEADINGS

the law is settled on the effect of such evidence which does not derive its source from the pleadings. The position of the law is that evidence must support pleadings as a party is expected to give evidence that is within the periphery of his pleadings and not beyond it. When such evidence are adduced the law says they should be ignored as they are regarded and treated as non issues. See Temile V. Awani (2001) 12 NWLR (PT. 728) page 726; Makwe V. Nwukor (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 733) page 356 and Orizu V. Anyaegbunam (1978) 5 SC 21…“
See also UBA PLC. Vs. G. S. IND (NIG) LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1250) 590 at 633 – 634. PER MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.

APPEAL: EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE A REPLY TO FRESH FACTS

It is without any iota of doubt that failure to file a reply to fresh facts which was not anticipated in the statement of claim is fatal to the case of claimant. In other words, a reply is necessary where a statement of defence raises a fresh fact which was not anticipated in the statement of claim. The effect of failure to file a reply in such circumstance is that the Claimant has admitted the fresh fact as correct. See A. G. of the Fed. (supra) and Unity Bank V. Bouari (2008) 33 (PT. 2) NSCQR 1296 at 1343. PER MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE: EFFECT OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON FACTS NOT PLEADED

It is settled law that evidence adduced on facts not pleaded go to no issue and same should be discountenanced or expunged, see N.D.I.C. Vs. ORANU (2001) FWLR (PT. 82) 1974; ONMADE V. A. C. B. PLC (1997) 1 NWLR (PT. 480) 123; OTARU & SONS LTD VS. IDRIS (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 606) 330 NJOKU VS. EME (1973) 5 SC 293; OKAFOR V. OKITIAKPE (1973) 2 SC 49. PER MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. BELLO ABDULLAHI 2. MOHAMMED BARA’U APPELANT(S)

And

1. MAL. MAMMAN DAN RABI 2. MAL. ALI BAFILLACE 3. SARKIN FULANI DAMANA 4. IDRIS HUTAWA RESPONDENT(S)

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Consequent upon a specially endorsed writ of summons dated the 30th day of May, 2017 and filed on the 31st day of May, 2017 at the High Court of Justice Yauri, Judicial Division Kebbi State, the Appellant as Claimants, claimed the following reliefs against the Respondents as defendants jointly and severally, thus:-
“1. A DECLARATION that the Claimants are the rightful owners to the exclusion of all other persons of the farmland in dispute located at Maikaho Village, Ngaski Local Government Area Kebbi State, which they acquire through inheritance from their father late Hakimi Ahmadu.
2. A DECLARATION that the Defendants did not acquire title over the farmland in dispute by any means.
3. A DECLARATION that the Defendants entry upon the farmland in dispute and remaining thereon without the Claimants prior consent and approval constitute an act of trespass.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000,00.) to the Claimants as general and exemplary damages.

AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves their privies, assigns, workmen, agents or howsoever called or any other person claiming title through them from further entry, cultivating or in any way dealing with the farmland in dispute.
6. Cost of the filing this action.
7. ANY OTHER ORDER that this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.”

The Respondents as defendants denied the claims and they were granted leave to file their joint statement of defence out of time. The Appellants as Claimants called four (4) witnesses to establish their claim. While the Respondents as defendants called six (6) witnesses to defend the action. At the close of hearing, counsel on both side addressed the Court. In a considered judgment the learned trial Judge Mohammed Suleiman Ambursa, J. found that there is no merit in the Claimants case and that the Claimants have failed to prove their claims. He refused all the reliefs sought against the defendants/respondents and he dismissed the suit on the 14th day of February, 2018.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Judge now Chief Judge in Suit No. KB/HC/6CV/2017, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal on the 5th day of April, 2018, containing five grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal with their particulars are as follows: –
“GROUND ONE:
The lower Court erred in law and thereby occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice when the learned trial Judge dismissed the Appellants’ suit, when he held in his judgment thus:-
“I therefore come to the conclusion that the Court’s process has been abused and the case with suit number KB/HC/6CV/2017 filed by the Claimants before the Court is hereby dismissed.
PARTICULARS
a. The trial Judge ought to have struck out the suit and not to dismiss same.
b. Where a suit is adjudged to be an abuse of the Court process, the only order the Court can reach is that of striping out and not dismissal.
GROUND TWO:
The lower Court erred in law and thereby occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice when the learned trial Judge held that the suit as filed by the Appellants constituted an abuse of the Court process on ground that there is a similar suit pending before the Principal District Court 2, Yauri in Suit No. YR/CMC/II/1cv/2017.

PARTICULARS:
a. The Appellants did not file Reply to the Respondents’ Statement of Defence on the new issue raised to the effect that Suit No. YR/CMC/II/1cv/2017 was still pending before the Principal District.
b. In the course of the trial the Respondents’ counsel cross examined the 1st Appellant on that issue and he answered that the suit was withdrawn and struck out.
c. The Respondents did not prove the contrary before the trial Court and in law, he who asserts must prove.
GROUND THREE:
The lower Court erred in law and thereby occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice when the learned trial Judge held in his judgment thus:-
“Thus it will be clearly seen that the quality of the evidence of the witnesses (PW1 – PW4) who testified for the Claimants was rendered incredible, contradictory, inadmissible hearsay”.
PARTICULARS:
a. The Appellants led credible and admissible evidence in support of their claims against the Respondents.
b. There is no doubt that the Appellants claimed title over the farmlands in dispute through inheritance (Traditional History).

Hearsay evidence is admissible in Suit No. KB/YR/HC/6cv/2017.
GROUND FOUR:
The decision of the lower Court is perverse and the trial Court arrived to a wrong conclusion.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
The trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence adduced before it by both parties.
GROUND FIVE:
The decision of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence.”

The record was transmitted on the 22nd day of June, 2018 but it was deemed properly compiled and transmitted on the 4th day of June, 2020.

At the hearing of the appeal on the 23rd day of September, 2020, S. B. Kaoje of counsel adopted the appellants brief of argument filed on the 8th day of August 2018 and it was deemed properly filed and served on the 4th day of June, 2020. Equally Garba A. Shehu of counsel adopted the respondents brief of argument filed on the 6th day of November, 2018, but it was further deemed on the 4th day of June, 2020. While the Appellant Counsel urged the Court to allow the appeal, the respondents counsel urged the Court to dismiss the appeal. From the five grounds of appeal the appellant distilled five issues for the determination of this appeal thus:-

“1. Whether where a suit is adjudged to constitute an abuse of the Court process, the proper order to be made by a Judge is that of striking out or dismissal (Ground one).
2. Whether from the state of pleadings filed before the Court below, the instant suit constituted abuse of the Court process and the suit ought to be struck out (Ground two).
3. Whether based on the evidence adduced at the Court below, the Appellant successfully established their claims against the Respondent to entitle them all the reliefs sought (Ground three).
4. Whether the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence led by both parties in arriving at his conclusion (Ground four).
5. Whether, hearsay evidence is admissible in an action for declaration of title though traditional history (Ground five).

The Respondents adopted the five issues formulated by the Appellants. In the same vein, I adopt the said issues formulated by the Appellant as issues for the determination of this appeal. However, before considering the issues, let me state the brief facts of the case as contained in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the statement of claim filed at the

lower Court. It is the case of the Appellants that the land in dispute originally belong to their grandfather Mallam Zakariyya Bindiga Yauri who deforested a large farmland 80 years ago. The eldest son of Mallam Zakariyya called Alhaji Barmu Idris, inherited the land and he borrowed portions of the farmland to the Respondents and one Mallam Garba, father of PW2 Muhammed Ciso. After the death of Alhaji Barmu Idris 15 years ago his younger brother late Hakimi Ahmadu Zakariyya the father of the Appellants took over the ownership of the vast farmland. And when a dispute first arose between the Appellants and the Respondents the matter was referred to the District head of Kamburawa for settlement and when it was resolved that the farmland belong to the Appellants’ father, the District Head pleaded with the appellants father and portions of the farmland were again borrowed to the Respondents. And after the death of Hakimi Ahmadu Zakariyya, the Appellants requested for the return of the portions of the farmland that was borrowed to the Respondents, but the Respondents refused to return the farmlands and they remained in possession. That gave rise to the institution of this action at the Lower Court and the earlier one at the Chief Magistrate Court II Yauri.

Again, before considering the issues let me deal with the issues raised by the Respondent counsel in his brief of argument, as it relates to the argument proffered by the Appellant counsel on issue one and two. The Respondents counsel submitted that on issue one the question is, whether the proper order to make after the Court adjudge a suit as constituting an abuse of Court process is to dismiss or strike it out. But the Appellants counsel went on to argue whether the suit constitute abuse of Court process or not from the state of pleadings and evidence. He said the argument is at variance with the issue formulated. Equally on issue two the Respondents counsel submitted that issue two is whether from the state of pleadings filed at the Court below, the instant suit constitute an abuse of Courts process and the suit ought to be strike out, but the Appellants counsel went on to argue whether the proper order to be made where a suit is found to be an abuse of Courts process is dismissal or striking out, which is not in tandem with issue two. The learned counsel submitted

that failure to proffer arguments in line with the issue formulated is a failure to argue the issue and the arguments goes to no issue and renders the issue as abandoned. And that an abandoned issue ought to be struck out. He relied on the case of Christopher Dibia V. the State (2017) ELC 2365 SC and Institute of Health V. ANYIP (2011) 45 NSCQR 691 at 703. I do not think there is any need to belabour on this issue. The two issues one and two can be considered together. Both issues relate to abuse of Courts process. It is either whether this suit constitute an abuse of Court process or what is the proper order to be made, if a suit is adjudged to constitute an abuse of Court process. Is it an order striking it out or an order of dismissal. An appellate Court can only refuse to consider an issue if it has no reference to or is not raised from any ground of appeal. See the case of EJOWHOMU V. EDOK – ETER MANDILAS LTD (1986) 5 NWLR (PT. 39) 1 at 16.

Issue one is whether where a suit is adjudged to constitute an abuse of the Court process, the proper order to be made by a Judge is that of striking out or dismissal. And issue two is whether from the state of pleadings filed before the Court below the instant suit constituted abuse of the Court process and the suit ought to be struck out.

Relying on a plethora of judicial authorities the Appellants counsel began his arguments with the meaning of abuse of Court process. He cited the case of DINGYADI VS. INEC (2010) 49 WRN 1 at 16 – 17 where the apex Court per Muhammad JSC. (as he then was) held thus:-
“An abuse of Court process has been defined in CBN V. Ahmed per Ogundare JSC … quoting Karibi – Whyte JSC … as the concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. It’s one common feature is the improper use of judicial process by a party to interfere with the due administration of justice … But the employment of judicial

process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the judicial process to be irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue” See the following cases; Osiec V. NCP (2013) NSCQR (PT. 1) 384 at 387, Arubo V. Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 280) 126 at 142.
Okorocha V. PDP (2014) 26 WRN 1 at 21, CPC V. Ombugadu (2013) 53 NSCQR 570 at 579 – 580.

The Appellants counsel contended that the learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the instant suit constituted an abuse of the Court process reason being that there exist a similar suit pending before the principal District Court 2 Yauri filed by the Appellants and same has not been withdrawn before filing the instant suit. The Appellants Counsel conceded that the Appellant did not file a reply in response to the Respondents statement of defence at the lower Court. But PW4 was cross examined by the 1st Appellant counsel in respect of the suit before the principal District Court 2, Yauri and

he replied that the suit was withdrawn and struck out. In the circumstance, the Respondents cannot rely on the fact that no reply was filed and therefore the fact is deemed admitted. Learned counsel submitted that the answer given by PW4 under cross examination suffices.

And the burden shifts to the Respondent to prove that the matter was not withdrawn by producing a copy of the proceedings or a covering letter from the principal District Court 2 Yauri proving that the matter is still pending. He submitted further that answers elicited under cross examination are good and admissible as the evidence obtained under examination in chief. He relied on the following cases;INEC V. IFEANYI (2010) 1 NWLR (PT. 1174) 98, BYUAN RESOURCES LTD V. MINISTER OF FCT (2016) LPELR 41494. He submitted that the evidence of PW4 is unchallenged and undiscredited. The Court should act upon it as cogent and credible. He relied on the case of EYO VS. ONUOHA (2011) 45 NSCQR (PT. 1) 210, AUGUSTINE OBINECHE & ORS VS. HUMPHREY AKUSOBI & ORS (2010) 38 WRN 177.

The learned Counsel submitted further that it is trite law that he who alleges must prove. The burden has shifted to the Respondent to prove that the suit before principal District Court, Yauri, is still pending. He relied on the case of MAINSTREET BANK LTD VS. CHAHINE (2015) 4 WRN 79, COMMERCE ASSURANCE LTD VS. ALLI (1992) 4 SCNJ 145; A. G. KWARA V. LAWAL (2017) 70 NSCQR 444; CHINEKWE V. CHINEKWE (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1208); AJIBARE V. AKOMOLAFE (2012) 10 WRN 62; OLUSANYA V. OSINLEYE (2013) 54 NSCQR (PT. 11) 932, the learned counsel also relied on Section 133 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) on burden of proof. The learned counsel finally submitted that where an action is adjudged to constitute an abuse of the process of the Court, the proper order to make is that of striking out. He relied on the case of Dingyadi Vs. INEC (supra). He urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant.

In his own response the Respondents Counsel submitted that where a suit is adjudged to constitute an abuse of Courts’ process, the proper order to be made is that of dismissal and not striking out. He relied on the case of lokpobiri v. Ogola & Ors (2015) LPELR 40838 (SC) where the apex Court held that: –

“The law is clear as having been held that the appropriate order the Court is expected to make having come to the conclusion that its process has been abused is to dismiss the process which constitute abuse. See Ojo Vs. Olawore (2008) 6 – 7 SC (PT. 2) 541; African Re – insurance Corp Vs. JDP Construction Nig. Ltd (2003) 4 SCM 1; First Bank Plc. Vs. T. S. A Industries (2012) 9 SCM 76 Per Ariwoola JSC (pp. 67 – 68, paras J – A). Learned counsel then submitted that the learned trial Judge of the lower Court was right when he dismissed the Appellants Suit No: KB/HC/6CV/2017 having found same to constitute an abuse of the Courts process.

The Respondents Counsel submitted that from the state of pleadings filed by the parties before the Court below, the Appellants’ case constituted an abuse of Court process and the lower Court was right to have dismissed same. He submitted further that where a new issue is raised in a statement of defence which was not contemplated by the Claimant in his statement of claim, the claimant must reply to it if he did not intend to admit it. See Obiozor Vs. Nnamua (2014) LPELR – 23041 (CA), where Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JCA (as he then was) held thus:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

“As the Supreme Court held in Unity Bank Plc V. Bouari (2008) 2 – 3 SC (PT. 11) 1 a reply is necessary where a statement of defence raises a fresh issue that was not raised or anticipated by the statement of claim. See also Egesimba V. Onuzuruike (2002) 9 – 10 SC. Such a fresh facts that have been elaborately pleaded with specific details require a specific denial, in a reply. In this case, there was no denial at all as no reply was filed. Where a fresh fact as pleaded in a statement of defence, if the plaintiff does not file a reply denying such fact, then he has admitted the fresh facts as correct. The Supreme Court restated the effect of the failure by the plaintiff to file a reply where necessary in A. G. of Abia State Vs. A. G. of the Fed. & Ors (2005) 6 SC (PT. 1) 63 …“

The Respondents Counsel submitted further that the answer given by the PW4 during cross examination that he has withdrawn the case filed before the Principal District Court 2 Yauri will only be relevant and useful to the Appellant if he pleaded it in his reply, if any, hence any unpleaded evidence goes to no issue. He relied on the case

of Nwokorobia Vs. Nwogu (2009) 58 NSCQR 142 at 166 where the apex Court held that the Appellant while being cross examined did testify that Nwoko deforested the land. This is however outside his pleadings, and the law is settled on the effect of such evidence which does not derive its source from the pleadings. The position of the law is that evidence must support pleadings as a party is expected to give evidence that is within the periphery of his pleadings and not beyond it. When such evidence are adduced the law says they should be ignored as they are regarded and treated as non issues. See Temile V. Awani (2001) 12 NWLR (PT. 728) page 726; Makwe V. Nwukor (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 733) page 356 and Orizu V. Anyaegbunam (1978) 5 SC 21…“
See also UBA PLC. Vs. G. S. IND (NIG) LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1250) 590 at 633 – 634.

The principle of law on abuse of Court process and also pleading vis a vis evidence are well settled. Any attempt to belabour on this trite principles would mean an attempt to delve into academic discussions. But for the sake of emphasis let me highlight on the undisputed facts and the applicable laws. It is an undisputed fact that

the Appellant had filed a suit against the Respondent at the principal District Court 2 Yauri on the same subject matter. When the Appellant instituted the instant suit against the Appellant at the lower Court, pleadings were filed and exchanged. In their statement of defence the Respondent raised the issue of the pending suit at the principal District Court 2 Yauri. The Appellant did not file the reply to the statement of defence in order to deny the fact that there was a pending suit at the Principal District Court 2 Yauri. The matter proceeded to trial and when PW4 was testifying during cross examination, he stated that the suit at the Principal District Court 2 Yauri was withdrawn and struck out. Now the Respondents submitted at the lower Court that Suit No. KB/YR/HC/6CV/2017 constitute an abuse of Court process because it was filed during the pendency of the Suit before the Principal District Court 2 Yauri, the Appellants cannot rely on the evidence elicited from PW4 during cross examination that the suit before the Principal District Court 2 Yauri was withdrawn and struck out, because, the evidence is not supported with pleaded facts. On the other hand,

the Appellants submitted that the lower Court is entitled to act on the on unchallenged and undiscredited evidence of Pw4 being cogent and credible. And hence the Respondent are asserting that the suit at the Principal District Court 2 Yauri was not withdrawn, the burden has shifted to the Respondents to prove with facts that the suit was still pending at the Principal District Court 2 Yauri. The lower Court in its finding at page 150 lines 30 – 31 and page 151 lines 1 – 6 stated thus: –
“In the circumstance, I am in agreement with the submission of learned counsel to the Defendants that the failure of the claimants to file a reply to the fresh facts that have been elaborately pleaded with specific details cannot be cured by any other means. The claimants are estopped from denying that a similar suit was pending before the Chief Magistrate Court II Yauri as copiously pleaded in the joint statement of defence.
I therefore come to the conclusion that the Court process has been abused and the case with suit No: KB/YR/HC/6CV/2017 filed by the Claimants before the Court is hereby dismissed. See Lokpobiri V. Ogola (2015) LPELR 40838″

The question now is whether the lower Court was correct in law in its findings that the failure of the Claimants now Appellants to file a reply to the fresh facts that have been elaborately pleaded with specific details cannot be cured by any other means i.e. the evidence of PW4 elicited during cross examination. Secondly, whether the lower Court was correct in law in its finding that the Courts process has been abused.

And thirdly, whether the lower Court was correct in law, when it dismissed suit No: KB/YR/HC/6CV/2017 having been adjudged as an abuse of Court process.

The failure to file a reply in a situation where it is necessary cannot be cured by any other means, i.e. the evidence of PW4 elicited during cross examination.

Therefore, the lower Court was correct in law in its finding that failure to file a reply to the fresh facts that have been elaborately pleaded with specific details cannot be cured by any other means. Having rejected the evidence of PW4, the lower Court was correct in law in its finding that Suit No: KB/YR/HC/6CV/2017 constitute an abuse of Court process.

There was no pleadings to support the evidence elicited from PW4 during cross examination that the suit pending at the Chief District Court 2 Yauri was withdrawn and struck out.

It is equally important to mention that it is trite law that pleadings without evidence of proof thereof also go to no issue. Evidence must be led to prove the facts relied on by the party in his pleadings.

A mere averment in pleading proves nothing unless it is admitted. See UBN V. ASTRA BUILDERS (W. A) LTD (2010) 41 (PT. 2) NSCQR 1016 at 1038 and ABACHA FOUNDATION V. UBA (2010) 41 (PT. 1) NSCQR 360 at 376 – 377.

And lastly, whether the lower Court was correct in law when it dismissed suit No: KB/YR/HC/6CV/2017 having adjudged same as an abuse of Court process.

It is settled law that once a Court is satisfied that any proceedings before it is an abuse of process it has the power, indeed the duty to dismiss it. This trite principle has been restated by the apex Court in plethora of cases. See ARUBA V. AIYELERU (1993) 2 SCNJ 9 at 102. LOKPOBIRI V. OGOLA & ORS (supra); OJO V. OLAWORE (supra); FIRST BANK PLC V. T. S. A. INDUSTRIES (supra) and AFRICAN REINSURANCE CORP VS. JDP CONST. (NIG) LTD (supra).
The learned trial Judge was correct in law, when he dismissed Suit NO: KB/HC/6CV/2017 having adjudged same as an abuse of Court process.

In consequence thereof the two issues are resolved against the Appellant. The appeal is lacking in merit and it is dismissed.

The judgment of the Kebbi State High Court delivered on the 14th day of February, 2018 in Suit No: KB/YR/HC/6CV/2017 dismissing the suit for being an abuse of process of the Court is hereby affirmed.
At this juncture let me refer to the dictum of I. T. Muhammad JSC (as he then was) in the case ofEFET VS. INEC (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 565) 223. He stated thus:
“To consider the merit of this appeal is like beating a dead horse …“
The point I am making here is that it will amount to a waste of judicial time and moreso, an academic exercise to consider the merit of a case that has been adjudged as an abuse of Court process with a consequential order of dismissal.

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of a preview of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Talba, JCA. I fully agree with his reasonings and conclusions that this appeal lacks merit. I also dismiss it. I abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment.

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ABUBAKAR M. TALBA, JCA. I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusions in

dismissing the Appeal as lacking in merit. I am also in agreement in refusing to go into the merit of the substantive Appeal, which had emanated from a suit which had been adjudged an abuse of the process of Court.
The Court, being the architect of its own integrity has a bounded duty to protect its processes from being abused. It is for this reason and the fuller reasons adumbrated in the lead judgment that I too will dismiss this suit at the Court below and abide by all other consequential orders made thereto.

Appearances:

…For Appellant(s)

…For Respondent(s)