ABUBAKAR SANI DANLADI & ANOR v. USMAN UDI & ORS
(2015)LCN/8075(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 3rd day of May, 2019
CA/YL/41/19
RATIO
APPEAL: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN AN APPEAL; THE EFFECT OF THE SUCCESS OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN AN APPEAL
It is trite that where a preliminary objection in an appeal succeeds and is sustained there would be no need to proceed to consider the arguments put forward by learned counsel to the parties on the issues for determination on the substantive appeal. See, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION VS. ANPP & ORS (2003) 12 SCNJ 81/82; OR (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851); NEPA VS. ANGO (2001) 15 NWLR (PT.737) 627 and RALPH UWAZURUIKE VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2007) 8 NWLR (PT. 1035) 1. In Uwazuruike?s case (Supra) his Lordship; Ogbuagu, JSC held thus:
Where a preliminary objection to an appeal succeeds there would be no need to go further to consider the arguments in support of issues for determination. See, CHIEF BRIGHT ONYEMEH & ORS VS. LAMBERT EGBUCHULAM & ORS (1996) 5 NWLR (PT. 448) 255 AT 268; (1996) 4 SCNJ 237; NEPA VS. ANGO (2001) 15 NWLR (PT. 737) 627 AT 645?646: ANPP VS. RETURNING OFFICER ABIA SOUTH SENETORIAL DISTRICT (MR. FESTUS UKAGWU) & 2 ORS (2005) 6 NWLR (PT. 920) 140 AT 170-170; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION VS. ANPP & ORS (2003) 12 SCNJ 67 AT 81-82; (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851) 182. (Underlined mine for emphasis). In the same vein, the Supreme Court in UDENWA & ANOR VS. UZODINMA & ANOR (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1346) 94 held thus:
Preliminary Objection in a case is an objection, if upheld would render further proceedings before the Court impossible or unnecessary. An objection to the Court’s jurisdiction is an example of a preliminary objection…. The purpose of this is to bring the appeal to an end having been discovered to be incompetent and or fundamentally defective. It will therefore be unnecessary to continue with an appeal once an objection is raised without disposing of same.” per. CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
Before Their Lordships
CHIDI NWAOMA UWAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYEROJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. ABUBAKAR SANI DANLADI
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)Appellant(s)
AND
1. USMAN UDI
2. JOSHUA PAAKU
3. GEORGE GEOFREY
4. TANKO MUSLIM MUNKAILA
5. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)Respondent(s)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Jalingo delivered on the 6th day of March, 2019 by S. D. Pam J. The 1st ? 4th Respondents took out an Originating Summons before the lower Court against the Appellants and the 5th Respondent as defendants. The following questions were raised for determination by the lower Court thus:
1. ?Whether regard being had to the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) the information given by the 1st defendant as to his age in the affidavit in support of his personal particulars in the INEC Form CF001 submitted to the 3rd defendant by him is false when the 1st defendant stated in the affidavit supporting his personal particulars that he was born on 14th January 1968, when the 1st defendant?s date of birth contained in the West African Senior Certificate submitted by him to the 3rd defendant indicates that the 1st defendant was born on 3rd April, 1977.
2. Whether regard being had to the provisions of Section 31(6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) the 1st defendant is not
1
liable to be disqualified by this Honourable Court from contesting election as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in the Governorship Election for Taraba State slated for March 2019, when the information contained in the affidavit in support of the 1st defendant?s particulars in the INEC Form CF001 submitted to the 3rd defendant as to his age is false!?
The following reliefs were thereafter sought:
i) ?A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the 1st defendant?s information contained in the affidavit supporting his personal particulars that he was born on 14th February 1968 is in conflict with the 1st defendant?s date of birth contained in the West African Senior Certificate submitted to him by the 3rd defendant which indicates that the 1st defendant was born on 3rd April, 1977.
ii) A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court disqualifying the 1st defendant from contesting election as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in the Governorship Election for Taraba State slated for March, 2019 on the ground that the information contained in the affidavit in support of the 1st defendant?s personal particulars in
2
the INEC Form CF001 submitted to the 3rd defendant by him is false.
iii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court disqualifying the 1st defendant from contesting election as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in the Governorship Election for Taraba State slated for March 2019 on the ground that the information contained in the affidavit in support of the 1st defendant?s personal particulars in the INEC Form CF001.
iv) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 3rd defendant from recognizing, accepting or treating the 1st defendant as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in the Governorship Election for Taraba State slated for March, 2019.
v) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 2nd defendant from recognizing, holding out or treating the 1st defendant as its candidate in the Governorship Election for Taraba State slated for March, 2019.
vi) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court prohibiting the 1st defendant from parading himself as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in the Governorship Election for Taraba State slated for March, 2019.
vii) AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as the Hon. Court deem fit to make in the circumstances.”
3
The Appellants in opposition to the Originating Summons filed their counter affidavit and also raised a Preliminary Objection to the effect that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear the Originating Summons on the grounds that it was filed outside the 14 days by virtue of Section 285(9) 4th Alteration Act, No. 21 of 2017 to the 1999 Constitution which requires that every pre-election matter must be filed within 14 days from the date of the event complained of. Secondly, it was alleged that the issues cum questions raised for determination by the 1st ? 4th Respondents before the lower Court had been determined to finality by a Court of competent jurisdiction and that the decision constitutes issue estoppel.
In his judgment, the trial Court dismissed the preliminary objection and held that since none of the 1st ? 4th Respondents participated at the Primary Election that produced the 1st Appellant, Section 285(14) of the 4th Alteration to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereafter referred to as the Constitution) did not apply to the case. Also, that since none of the 1st ?
4
4th Respondents was a party in Appeal No. CA/J/EP/GOV/55/08, they cannot be bound by the said judgment. The trial Court granted all the claims of the 1st ? 4th Respondents, disqualified and restrained the 1st Appellant from parading himself as the Governorship candidate of the 2nd Appellant. The 5th Respondent was also restrained from recognizing the 1st Appellant as the Governorship candidate of the 2nd Appellant for the 2019 Election in Taraba State. The Appellants were unhappy with the above decision thus this appeal.
The Appellants raised three issues for the determination of the appeal thus:
(i) ?Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the provisions of Section 285(9) of the 4th Alteration No. 21 of 2017 does not apply to proceedings filed pursuant to Section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. (This issue relates to ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/J/EP/GOV/55/08 does not constitute issue estoppel as to rob the trial Court of jurisdiction to determine the issues
5
submitted by the 1st ? 4th Respondents before the trial Court. (This issue relates to ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).
(iii) Having regard to the Judgment of the Court of appeal in Appeal No. CA/J/EP/GOV/55/08 can it be said that the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the 1st Appellant lied in his Form CF001 submitted by the 2nd Appellant to the 5th Respondent.”
(This issue relates to ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
In response, the 1st ? 4th Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection seeking that the Appeal be struck out.
The grounds of the objection are as follows:
1. ?The Notice of Appeal dated 6th March, 2019 and filed same date which can be found at pages 945 ? 949 of the Record of Appeal was not served on the 1st ? 4th Respondents or their Counsel before the Appellants unilaterally compiled the Record of Appeal.
2. The 1st ? 4th Respondents were denied the opportunity to participate in the compilation of the Record of Appeal contrary to the Provision of Order 8 Rules 1 ? 3 of the Rules of this Honourable Court.
6
3. The manner in which the Record of Appeal was compiled by the Appellants denied the 1st ? 4th Respondents opportunity to file a cross appeal or a Respondents? Notice before the trial Court.”
We were urged to hold that the appeal is incompetent.
In the alternative the 1st ? 4th Respondents distilled three issues for the determination of the appeal thus:
(i) WHETHER the learned trial judge was right when he held that the Provisions of Section 285(9) of the 4th Alteration No. 21 of the 2017 does not apply to proceedings filed pursuant to Section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. (This issue relates to grounds 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
(ii) WHETHER the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/J/EP/GOV/55/08 does not constitute issue estoppel as to rob the trial Court of jurisdiction to determine the issues submitted by the 1st ? 4th Respondents before the trial Court. (This issue relates to ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).
?(iii) Having regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/J/EP/GOV/55/08 can it be said that
7
the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the 1st Appellant lied in his Form CF001 submitted by the 2nd Appellant to the 5th Respondent. (This issue relates to ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal).”
?In arguing the Preliminary Objection, the learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondents E. U. Erhinure Esq., submitted that the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 6th March, 2019 was not served on the 1st ? 4th Respondents in person or through their counsel and that the 1st ? 4th Respondents were not invited for the compilation of the Record of Appeal, contrary to the provisions of Order 8 Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of this Court. It was submitted that the Appellants unilaterally compiled the record which was served on the Appellants on 20th March, 2019 with the Notice of Appeal. The Appellants contended that the matter is a pre-election matter.
?It was further argued that, (without conceding that the period for filing a Notice of Appeal in this matter is by the provision of Section 285(9) of the Constitution limited to 14 days from the date of the judgment appealed against) a cross appeal would also be subject to the same
8
limitation period. It was submitted that by the 20th March, 2019 when the Appellants were served the Record of Appeal and the Notice of Appeal the time for the 1st ? 4th Respondents to file a cross appeal had elapsed. It was submitted that the Respondents ought to have been notified promptly of the pendency of the Appeal against the judgment to enable them defend the appeal, file a cross appeal or a Respondents? Notice. The 1st ? 4th Respondents? right to cross appeal or to file a Respondents? Notice had become statute barred if this matter is considered a pre-election matter. It was submitted that the Notice of Appeal not served before the compilation of records is incompetent. See, ADEGBOLA VS. OSIYI (2017) 269 LRCN PAGE 1 at 18 Paragraphs ZJJ ? 19A and Paragraphs EE ? JJ. It was submitted that this Court is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case by the doctrine of precedent. See, OSAKWE VS. FCE ASABA (2010) 10 NWLR (PT. 1201) PAGE 1 at PAGE 36, Paragraphs E ? H. We were urged not to allow legal ambush as was done by the Appellant, taking away the right of the 1st ? 4th Respondents
9
to justice. We were urged to uphold the objection and strike out the appeal as being incompetent.
The 5th Respondent did not file any process in respect of the preliminary objection.
In response to the preliminary objection, the learned counsel to the Appellants Yakubu Maikasuwa Esq., submitted that by Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 the Respondents must be given three clear days Notice before the hearing. It was argued that on the 1st of April, when this matter was adjourned to 9th April, 2019 for hearing the Respondents were in Court. On 9/4/19 the matter was adjourned at the instance of the 1st ? 4th Respondent on the ground of the ill health of learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondents. We were urged to apply the consequence of the disobedience of the Rules of this Court to either disregard the preliminary objection or postpone the hearing in view of the conduct of the Respondents/objectors. We were urged to apply Order 10 Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court.
Secondly, in respect of compilation and transmission of records as provided for under Order 8 Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of this Court are not
10
sacrosanct, therefore the rules could be waived. It was submitted that the 1st ? 4th Respondents were served with the Motion Ex – Parte and the Motion on Notice for injunction and filed a counter affidavit in opposing the application on Notice and cannot complain about non-service of the Notice of Appeal. Further, that the 1st ? 4th Respondents have also filed their Brief or Argument in the appeal and therefore waived their right if any. We were urged to refuse to entertain the Notice of Preliminary Objection and proceed with the appeal.
As a preliminary point, when this matter came up for hearing on 9/4/19, from the records of Court the learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondents wrote a letter for adjournment on the grounds of ill health. The learned counsel to the Appellants initially opposed the application for adjournment but, later conceded and asked for punitive costs on the grounds that he would have to wait two extra days in Yola and gave the cost of his hotel accommodation which he asked for, totaling N80,000.00 (Eighty Thousand Naira) which was awarded to the learned counsel to the Appellants and the matter was adjourned to
11
11/4/19, one of the dates suggested by the learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondents in his letter and agreed to by the learned counsel to the Appellants. The cost was awarded and was to be paid before the next adjourned date. Thus, the matter was fixed and heard on the 11/4/19 which was the earlier of the two dates suggested by learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondent which was agreed to by the learned counsel to the Appellants. The learned counsel to the Appellants cannot rightly rely on the provisions of Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 when the appeal was argued having agreed upon the hearing date, compensated for the short adjournment and he was not prepared for an adjournment beyond the two days. Rule 3 of the same Order 10 was given as the solution for non compliance, to this I would say, the sub rule cannot avail the Appellants as this Court gave the alternative remedy of awarding costs to the Appellants for the short notice and/or adjournment.
It is well settled law that where a Notice of Preliminary Objection is filed or argued in the Respondent?s brief challenging the jurisdiction of the Court or the
12
competence of an appeal (as in this case), the Court is duty bound to consider the preliminary objection first and determine same, before considering the appeal on the merit if the need arises. See, ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS VS. IBRAHIM UMAR & ORS (2019) LPELR ? 47296 (SC) P.7, paragraphs A ? D. The essence of the challenge by way of preliminary objection is to foreclose the determination of the appeal, it is therefore best to resolve it first to save valuable time. See, YARO VS. AREWA CONSTRUCTION & ORS (2007) LPELR ? 3516 (SC) and OKAFOR VS. NWUDE (1999) 7 S. C (PT. 1) 106.
With the preliminary objection raised and argued by the learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondents, there is no doubt that the Notice of Appeal was filed on 6th March, 2019 and was not served on the 1st ? 4th Respondents or their counsel before the Appellants compiled the Record of Appeal. The 1st ? 4th Respondents did not participate in the compilation of the record of appeal contrary to the provisions of Order 8 Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of this Court.
?The compiled records were served on the 1st ? 4th Respondents on
13
20th March, 2019. The Appellants have not refuted this fact. It is on record that the Appellants had argued that the matter is a pre-election matter bound by the Constitutional Provision of Section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (even though not conceded by the 1st ? 4th Respondents? learned counsel) limiting the date for filing an appeal to 14 days from the date of the judgment being appealed against. The judgment of the lower Court was delivered on 6th March, 2019. As rightly argued by the learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondents a Cross Appeal, would also be subject to the same limitation period. By the 20th March, 2019 when the 1st ? 4th Respondents were served with the compiled record of appeal the time for the 1st ? 4th Respondents to file a Cross Appeal if desired had elapsed. The Appellants (as rightly argued by the learned counsel to the 1st ? 4th Respondents) ought to have promptly notified the Respondents of the pendency of the Appeal against the judgment to enable them prepare and defend the appeal, cross appeal or file a Respondent?s Notice. The 1st ?
14
4th Respondents? right to cross appeal or to file a Respondents? Notice was denied them. The Respondents ought to have been notified or served with the Notice of appeal before the compilation of the record of appeal.
The issue of not being given three clear days before the hearing of the preliminary objection has been resolved under the preliminary issue having been raised before the argument of the preliminary objection and raised once again in response to the objection by the learned counsel to the Appellants.
The learned counsel to the Appellants had argued that the provisions of Order 8 Rules 2 and 3 are not sacrosanct and could be waived. For clarity, Order 8 Rules 2 and 3 provide as follows:
Order 8 Rules 2 and 3
(2) In pursuit of Rule 1 above, the registrar shall within fourteen (14) days summon the parties before him to ?
(a) Settle the documents to be included in the Record of Appeal and
(b) Fix the amount to be deposited by the Appellant to cover the estimated cost of making up and forwarding the Record of Appeal.
(3) The said Registrar shall whether any of the parties attend or not,
15
provided the notice has been duly served on the parties to the appeal, proceed to settle and determine those matters in accordance with the provisions of Rules 2(a) and (b) of this Order.?
(Underlined mine for emphasis).
From the above provisions of the Rules of this Court compliance with the above Rules is mandatory, connoted by the use of the word ?shall? and cannot be waived as urged by the learned counsel to the Appellants.
Service of a Motion Ex Parte and a Motion on Notice for injunction on the 1st ? 4th Respondents who filed a Counter Affidavit cannot take the place of service of the Notice of Appeal on the Respondents. No doubt the 1st ? 4th Respondents filed their brief of argument but, their complaint is the denial of their right to file a cross appeal or a Respondents? Notice not inability to file their brief of argument in the main appeal. In ADEGBOLA VS. OSIYI (2017) (SUPRA) AT PAGE 18 his lordship, Kekere ? Ekun, JSC on the effect of non service of a Notice of Appeal on the Respondent held thus:
?Being an originating process, it is a fundamental requirement not only of the
16
rules of this Court but also of the Constitutional right to fair hearing guaranteed under the constitution that all parties to the appeal be duly served therewith. It is only when a party has Notice of Proceedings that he is in a position to react thereto and place his own side of the case before the Court. In an appeal service of the Notice of Appeal on the Respondent provides him with an opportunity to participate in the compilation of the records and to file cross ? appeal, if necessary….
Failure to serve an originating process on a party to the proceedings is a fundamental defect which goes to the root of the Court?s jurisdiction to adjudicate.?
His Lordship, Eko JSC on his part in the same decision above at pages 18 ? 19 held thus:
?The effect of non service on the Respondent of the Notice of Appeal is that it deprives the Respondent the opportunity he has to file a Notice of Cross Appeal within the time stipulated. It also deprives him of the opportunity of participating in the settlement of record of appeal….
17
This is why in the Court of justice the rule is: he who comes to justice must come with clean hands. Justice is not a game of hide and seek. The Appellant who engages in a game of surprise and attack must be prepared for the full wrath of the Court of justice if it turns out that he had not been fair to the adversary.”
I would add that justice is not a game of hide and seek, both sides must be given equal opportunity to present their side of the case, it is a Constitutional right.
On the other hand, the present situation can be distinguished from the situation that arose in a recent decision of this Court and division in the unreported case of CA/YL/23/19: Garba G. Hamman Julde V. Abdulsalam Gambo Mubarak & 2 Ors delivered on 8th April, 2019. In the above case, the Notice of Appeal had been served on the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent objector (as to non service) in chambers but the Notice was not accepted. Secondly, a call was put across to the 1st Respondent who was informed of the pendency of the appeal through a phone call and he refused to disclose his
18
whereabout for personal service. Thirdly, when the matter came up in Court, the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent did not complain of non service of the Notice of Appeal but, rather the non service of the compiled records, which was then served on the spot. The Court in the judgment also relied on Order 2 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Rules of this Court, to the effect that personal service was not necessary where the Court is satisfied that the existence of the Notice of Appeal had been communicated to the Respondent. In the present case, the Appellants have not argued or made out that the existence of the Notice of Appeal had been communicated to the 1st ? 4th Respondents before the 20th of April, 2019 when their time to cross appeal had elapsed or before the compilation of the record of Appeal.
In sum, the Preliminary Objection succeeds, same is sustained. It is trite that where a preliminary objection in an appeal succeeds and is sustained there would be no need to proceed to consider the arguments put forward by learned counsel to the parties on the issues for determination on the substantive appeal. See, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION VS.
19
ANPP & ORS (2003) 12 SCNJ 81/82; OR (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851); NEPA VS. ANGO (2001) 15 NWLR (PT.737) 627 and RALPH UWAZURUIKE VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2007) 8 NWLR (PT. 1035) 1. In Uwazuruike?s case (Supra) his Lordship; Ogbuagu, JSC held thus:
?Where a preliminary objection to an appeal succeeds there would be no need to go further to consider the arguments in support of issues for determination. See, CHIEF BRIGHT ONYEMEH & ORS VS. LAMBERT EGBUCHULAM & ORS (1996) 5 NWLR (PT. 448) 255 AT 268; (1996) 4 SCNJ 237; NEPA VS. ANGO (2001) 15 NWLR (PT. 737) 627 AT 645?646: ANPP VS. RETURNING OFFICER ABIA SOUTH SENETORIAL DISTRICT (MR. FESTUS UKAGWU) & 2 ORS (2005) 6 NWLR (PT. 920) 140 AT 170-170; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION VS. ANPP & ORS (2003) 12 SCNJ 67 AT 81-82; (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851) 182.?
(Underlined mine for emphasis).
In the same vein, the Supreme Court in UDENWA & ANOR VS. UZODINMA & ANOR (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1346) 94 held thus:
?Preliminary Objection in a case is an objection, if upheld would render further proceedings before the Court impossible or
20
unnecessary. An objection to the Court?s jurisdiction is an example of a preliminary objection….
The purpose of this is to bring the appeal to an end having been discovered to be incompetent and or fundamentally defective. It will therefore be unnecessary to continue with an appeal once an objection is raised without disposing of same.”
Therefore, there is no need to consider the substantive appeal. Resolving the substantive appeal would be a mere academic exercise. It is immaterial that the substantive matter would have succeeded. See, CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE VS. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2011) LPELR ? 8257 (SC) PP. 78 ? 79, Paragraphs G ? E where the Apex Court explained the futility of determining academic questions or issues that are no longer live and would not enure any benefit or right on the successful party. See, IKUFORIJI VS. F.R.N (2018) LPELR ? 43884 (SC) P.11 C-F, TANIMOLA VS. SURVEYS AND MAPPING GEODATA LIMITED (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 403) 517 and NDULUE VS. IBEZIM (2002) 12
21
NWLR (PT. 780) 139. For the above reasons, this Court cannot and would not look into the substantive appeal as it would be an exercise in futility.
I hold that the appeal is incompetent, it is hereby struck out. Parties to bear their respective costs.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother CHIDI NWAOMA UWA JCA.
I am in agreement with learned brother that the preliminary objection of the 1st ? 4th Respondents be upheld.
One golden rule running through the cases is that parties to a case must place all their cards on the table. There is no room for hide and seek. Without serving the 1st ? 4th Respondents with the notice of appeal in the appeal before us, the Appellants proceeded to compile the record behind the backs of the 1st ? 4th Respondents thus depriving them of the opportunity to promptly react one way or the other to the appeal if they so wished.
?For the reasons more ably and elaborately stated in the lead judgment, I uphold the preliminary objection of the 1st ? 4th Respondents and hereby strike out the
22
appeal.
Parties shall bear their respect costs of the appeal.
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Chidi N. Uwa JCA. I agree entirely with the reasoning and the conclusions therein that the Appeal is incompetent and should be struck out. It is hereby struck out. I abide by the consequential orders therein.
23
Appearances:
Yakubu Maikasuwa, Esq.For Appellant(s)
E. U. Erhinure, Esq. for the 1st-4th Respondents.
5th Respondent served but absentFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
Yakubu Maikasuwa, Esq.For Appellant
AND
E. U. Erhinure, Esq. for the 1st-4th Respondents.
5th Respondent served but absentFor Respondent
