AFRICAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD NIGERIA LIMITED v. DARLING PETROLEUM NIGERIA LIMITED (2015)

AFRICAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD NIGERIA LIMITED v. DARLING PETROLEUM NIGERIA LIMITED

(2015)LCN/7961(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 15th day of July, 2015

CA/B/47/2010

RATIO

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE UNDEFENDED LIST; WHEN CAN A SUIT BE PLACED BY THE TRIAL COURT ON THE UNDEFENDED LIST
The rules provide that a suit may be placed by the trial Court on the undefended list where it is in respect of a claim to recover a debt, liquidated money demand or any other demand where the debt is clear and there is no defence against it after perusal of the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of the notice of his intention to defend the suit. per. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: THE UNDEFENDED LIST; THE STEPS THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT AS PLAINTIFF TO ACTIVATE THE UNDEFENDED LIST

The following steps are to be followed by the applicant as plaintiff to activate the undefended list procedure:
i. An application must be made to the Court for the issuance of a Writ of Summons. (Ostensibly, the application was made hence the issuance of the writ by the Registrar filed on 18/05/09).
ii. The application must be to recover a debt, liquidated money demand or any other claim. (The endorsement on the writ showed a demand for the liquidated sum of N10,488,678.80).
iii. The application must be supported by an affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which the claim is based. (The affidavit filed with the motion ex-parte set out the factual basis of the claim in support of the writ).
iv. The affidavit must state that the deponent believes the defendant has no defence. (Paragraph 12 of the affidavit declared that the defendant has no defence to this suit).
v. The Court should enter the suit for hearing on the undefended list if it believes there is indeed no defence. (In this case, after considering the motion ex-parte on 26/05/09, the trial Court declared that the suit be placed on the undefended list, marked undefended and all processes served on the Appellant who was the defendant).
vi. The Court shall mark the writ of summons accordingly. (In this case, the writ was marked “undefended”)
vii. The Court shall set a suitable date for hearing. (The Court set a date- 11/06/09 for hearing as shown on the order). See Nkwo Market Community Bank (Nigeria) Ltd v Paul Ejikeme Uwaabuchi Obi (2010) LPELR-2051 SC; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 169 S.C. per. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: THE UNDEFENDED LIST; WHETHER A WRIT OF SUMMON SHOULD BE MARKED UNDEFENDED BY THE COURT BEFORE IT BE PLACED ON THE UNDEFENDED LIST

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: THE UNDEFENDED LIST; THE REASON FOR THE TECHNICALITY OF THE PROVISION DEALING WITH ACTIONS ON THE UNDEFENDED LIST

This point can easily be clarified by one of the old Supreme Court authorities on this issue, Olubusola Stores v Standard Bank (1975) LPELR- 2610; (1975) 1 All NLR 125; (1975) 4 SC 37, Coker JSC made us understand in his usual profound manner the reason for the technicality of the procedure in Or 3 r 9 of the old rules of the Supreme Court which were applicable to the High Court of Lagos at the time and are essentially in pari materia with the same provisions in Or 23 r 1 of the Bendel State High Court Rules being interpreted in this case at hand. His Lordship stated as follows:-
“The provisions dealing with actions on the undefended list are apparently technical and we think that they are purposely created in that way in order to ensure that by asking the plaintiff to comply strictly with the Rules, injustice is being avoided to a defendant whose freedom to defend the case has been rather restricted. The provisions of the Rules are designed as they are in order to ensure the safeguards which must necessarily be available to a defendant if the Rules are followed strictly; and if those rules are complied with, the defendant need suffer no prejudice in his defence if he himself and on his part has complied with the rules”.
His Lordship explained further:
“The rule prescribes clearly that an action which is meant to be on the undefended list should be commenced by a Writ but such Writ should be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts of the case and other matters described in that Rule which would satisfy the Court to enter the suit for hearing in what shall be called the undefended list. After the Writ has been so marked, the usual copy for service would be delivered to the defendant and one of the two alternatives would follow”. per. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: THE EFFECT OF THE BREACH OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

It is trite that the breach of practice and procedure can only render a proceeding irregular and not a nullity. See Saliba v Lababedi (1972) 12 S.C. 197, Agbakoba v INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489 SC; (2008) LPELR-232 SC. per. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

AFRICAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD NIGERIA LIMITED – Appellant(s)

AND

DARLING PETROLEUM NIGERIA LIMITED – Respondent(s)

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Delta State sitting at Sapele delivered by Hon. Justice E.N. Emudiainohwo on the 20/7/2009, wherein the learned trial judge awarded the sum of N10,488,678.80 (Ten Million, Four Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy-Eight Naira, Eighty Kobo) to the Respondent. The following are the facts that led to this appeal.

The Respondent by a Motion Ex-parte pursuant to Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the defunct Bendel State then applicable to Delta sought that the Writ of Summons regarding the suit be placed on the undefended list.

The Respondent had attached the following: Exhs. A-H copies of the invoice with which the orders were made. Exh K is a letter from the Respondent to the Appellant requesting the confirmation of the amount owed the Respondent Exh J and L are confirmation letters from the Appellant to the Respondent that the Appellant indeed owes the Respondent the sum of N10,488,678.80 (Ten Million, Four Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira, Eighty Kobo) and asking for more time to enable Appellant liquidate her indebtedness to the Respondent. Exhs I and I1 are cheques issued to the Respondent as part payment of the value of the diesel supplied by the Respondent to the Appellant. In respect of Exhs A-H. Both cheques were returned uncleared.

On the 26/5/2009, the trial Court granted the order as prayed and ordered that the Writ of Summons be marked undefended and placed on the undefended list, service was ordered on the defendant now Appellant. Appellant’s counsel filed a notice of intention to defend with a supporting affidavit after being served with the court process.

On the return date, both counsel addressed the Court based on the affidavit evidence filed by them. The Respondent argued that judgment be entered in his favour but it was the contention of the Appellant that the matter be transferred to the general cause list. Judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant has appealed to this Court through a Notice of Appeal filed on 8/8/2009 containing one ground of appeal. The Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 18/3/10. The Respondent’s counsel filed his brief of argument on 9/4/10. The Appellant filed a reply brief on 16/4/10.

The Appellant in his brief settled by S.O. Uwode, ESQ formulated two issues for determination. The issues read as follows:
i. Whether the case before the trial Court was properly brought under the undefended list in accordance with the provision of Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the defunct Bendel State now applicable to Delta State.
ii. Whether the failure by the Respondent to comply with the provision of Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the Defunct Bendel State now applicable to Delta State, is a fundamental defect capable of rendering the Writ of Summons and consequently the proceeding null and void.

The Respondent in his brief identified one issue for determination:
Whether the issuance of Writ of Summons in respect of a case brought under the undefended list before the grant of the order to place same under the undefended list is fatal to the proceedings.

After careful perusal of the issues and arguments as stated by both parties, it is clear to me that the two issues raised by the Appellant are repetitive on the one hand and the same as the Respondent’s sole issue. I will adopt the first issue identified by the Appellant as it sufficiently crystallizes the complaints raised by the grounds of appeal.

SOLE ISSUE
Whether the case before the trial Court was properly brought under the undefended list in accordance with the provision of Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the defunct Bendel State now applicable to Delta State.

Appellant’s counsel submitted that the procedure under Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the Defunct Bendel State applicable to Delta State is a special procedure of placing certain category of cases under the undefended list, to facilitate expeditious determination of non-contentious cases.

Counsel further submitted that the decision to place a case on the undefended list is a judicial function of a presiding judge who is empowered to exercise his discretion after giving due consideration to the processes before the Court. Counsel stated that it is upon the trial judge’s satisfaction that the case should be put on the undefended list that the court marks the Writ of Summons as “undefended”and endorses it.

Counsel reiterated that it is necessary for the trial judge to personally take a decision regarding the materials before the Court and that this judicial discretion cannot be delegated to any officer of the Court or the respondent.

Counsel argued that the Registrar of the Court and not the Presiding Judge marked the Writ of Summons without an Order of Court since the Writ of Summons was filed and marked “undefended” on 18/5/2009, eight clear days before the presiding judge made an order to place the suit on the “undefended list” on 26/5/2009. The Registrar put the cart before the horse. The judge is to mark the Writ as undefended and to endorse it.

Counsel submitted that the Writ of Summons is a nullity and the Court cannot cure the defect, which means there were no proceedings before the Court. Appellant’s counsel posited that the Writ was marked as undefended before the order was given and that takes away the jurisdiction of the trial judge to hear the matter. Counsel cited Nwakama v Iko L.G.A of Cross River & Ors. (1996) DTLR pg 112 at 113 ratios 1 & 2, Drexel E and N Res v Trans Int’l Bank Ltd (2009) Vol. 15 W.R.N pg 1 at page 10 ratio 2, Jagal Pharma Ltd v Hussaini (2008) 14 W.R.N pg 160-167 ratios 1-6.

Counsel further contended that the Respondent has to first apply to Court to list the matter as undefended and the grant of such application is a condition precedent to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction and as such, the lower Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the provision of Order 23 was never complied with by the Respondent. The exercise of the Court’s discretion in the matter was never sought and granted. Counsel cited ACB Int’l Bank Plc v Out (2008) All F.W.L.R pt 406 pg 1817 at 1820 ratio 2, Confex Limited v Nigeria Arab Bank Limited (1997) 2 N.W.L.R (Pt. 496) pg 643 ratio 1, City Eng (Nig) Ltd, v NAA (1999) N.W.L.R (Pt. 625) pg 76 ratio 1,2,6 and Drexel E and N Res v Trans Int’l Bank Limited (Supra).

Counsel argued that the case of Waade Investment Nig Limited v Trade Bank Plc. (2006) All F.W.L.R. Pt 336 pg 352 cited by the Respondent does not apply to this case. Appellant’s counsel urged this Court to allow the appeal.

Respondent’s counsel, Mr. T.K. Thomas argued that there is nothing under Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the defunct Bendel State as applicable to Delta State that requires an applicant for a Writ of Summons under the undefended list to apply directly to the judge or any other person than the registrar for the issuance of a Writ of Summons as provided for in Order 5 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988.

Counsel submitted that the Respondent is only required to complete and submit the pro forma Writ to the registrar of the Court who will determine, by the accompanied documents, whether the Writ is one to be placed on the general cause or undefended list who, based on the supporting affidavit, can infer that the case is one the Respondent wished to have placed on the undefended list. Counsel insisted that in this case, the Writ of Summons was placed on the undefended list upon the order of the Court and the Writ remains a valid Writ of Summons. Counsel cited Waade Investment Nig. Ltd & Anor v Trade Bank Plc (Supra) and Order 5 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the Defunct Bendel State now applicable to Delta State.

Counsel argued that it is the registrar or any other officer of the Court that marks the Writ “undefended” and Appellant’s position that it is after the Court Order is made that the Writ of Summons is entered under the undefended list procedure is deemed issued is fallacious. That the trial judge is not concerned with the issuing of the Writ of Summons but with the placement of the Writ in the appropriate cause list for hearing. Counsel cited Order 23 R 1.

Respondent’s counsel argued that even if the Writ was marked before the Order of Court was given, it does not invalidate the Writ. Counsel cited Abayomi & Anor v Attorney General Ondo State (2007) All F.W.L.R. (Pt. 391) Pg. 1683 at 1686 R.7 & 8, and said that even if the Writ in this case ought not to have been issued before the Order of the trial judge placing the Writ on the undefended list, the fact that there is no appeal against the Order made on the 26/05/09 in favour of the Respondent, the Court should apply Order 2 R. 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of the defunct Bendel State as applicable to Delta State and treat the situation as an irregularity which will not nullify the proceedings or any document, judgment or order given by the trial Court and as such, the Appellant has waived his right to complain. Counsel cited Order 2 R. 2(1).

Counsel posited that the Ex-parte application dated 18/05/09 and the Order made by the trial judge on 26/5/09 is for the placement of the suit on the undefended list and not for the issuing of a fresh Writ of Summons and it is only an existing suit that can be placed on the undefended list. Counsel cited Oburra Local Government Council v Timothy Obe (2007) All F.W.L.R. (Pt. 395) pg 566 at 568 R2.
Counsel submitted that there are conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue of the validity of a Writ of Summons issued before an Order of Court placing such Writ of Summons on the undefended list. He submitted that Nwakanma V Iko Local Government Area (Supra) is not applicable because in that case, the registrar acted independent of the judge in placing the suit on the undefended list. However, in this case, the placement of the Writ of Summons was by the Order of the judge.

Counsel urged this Court to follow the reasoning in Kwara Hotels Ltd v Ishola (2002) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 135) Pg. 759 where it was decided that mere technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice. Counsel submitted that it was not in the interest of justice to place undue reliance on technicalities. Counsel cited Ramadan Nigeria Limited & Anor v Afribank Plc. (2005) All F.W.L.R (Pt. 285) pg 482 at 486 R. 8 and 9, Barr. Edward Ehimwenma Osifo & Anor v Okogbo Community Bank Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt 372) pg 1803 at 1810 R. 9 and 10, Ezekiel Okoli v Morecab Finance (Nig) Ltd (2007) All F.W.L.R (Pt. 369) pg 1164 at 1170 R. 10 and 11. Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.

RESOLUTION
The rules provide that a suit may be placed by the trial Court on the undefended list where it is in respect of a claim to recover a debt, liquidated money demand or any other demand where the debt is clear and there is no defence against it after perusal of the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of the notice of his intention to defend the suit.
Order 23 R1 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 1988 applicable to Delta State applied by the trial judge states as follows:-
Whenever application is made to Court for the issue of a writ of summons in respect of a claim to recover a debt, liquidated money demand or any other claim and the application is supported by an affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which the claim is based and stating that in the deponent’s belief there is no defence thereto, the Court shall, if satisfied that there are good grounds for believing that there is no defence thereto, enter the suit for hearing in what shall be called the “undefended” list and mark that writ of summons accordingly, and thereon a date for hearing suitable to the circumstance of the particular case.

Let me do a review of the facts on record. On 18/05/09, the Respondent filed a Writ of Summons and a motion ex-parte praying for an order to place the suit on the undefended list. It was suit No S/59/2009. The motion ex-parte was supported by a 23 paragraph affidavit with several exhibits i.e A-M.

On the 26/5/09, the presiding judge at the lower Court granted the Order as prayed and ordered that the said suit be placed on the “undefended list” and the Writ of Summons marked “undefended”. The lower Court also ordered that the Writ of Summons together with the Order and the Motion on Notice together with the affidavit in support and the annexure be served on the Appellant. The case was adjourned to 11th of June, 2009 for hearing. The enrolled Order is on Pg. 24 of the record. On 11/6/09, the Appellant filed its notice to defend the suit with a 17 paragraph affidavit in support. On 7/7/09, both counsel were heard in respect of the contending facts before the Court. The Respondent’s counsel contended that judgment be entered against the Appellant, while the Appellant’s counsel contended that the suit be transferred to the general cause list.

To appreciate the point being made by the Appellant’s counsel, a brief glance at the ground of appeal is necessary.

Let me set out the sole ground of appeal and particulars of error filed on 10/8/09 as gleaned from Pg. 46-47 of the Record:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The learned trial judge erred in law when he entered the suit on the undefended list and proceeded to enter judgment for the plaintiff/Respondent in the sum of N10,488,678.80 (Ten Million, Four Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira, Eighty Kobo) when the condition precedent to entertain the suit was not met, i.e the requisite leave to enter the suit on the undefended list for hearing was not sought and obtained before the Writ of Summons was filed and no leave was granted to mark the Writ undefended in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rules 1-2 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules of the defunct Bendel State now applicable to Delta State.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The writ and ancillary processes had been filed and the writ marked undefended before the order to place or enter the suit for hearing on the undefended list was made on the 26th May, 2009.
b. The Plaintiff/Respondent did not ask for leave in his motion exparte filed unto court on the 18th day of May, 2009 to enter the suit for hearing on the undefended list and no leave was granted to enter the suit for hearing on the undefended list in the order of court made on the 26th May, 2009.
c. The Plaintiff/Respondent did not seek the leave of Court to file and issue the Writ of Summons against the Defendant/Appellant under the undefended list.

Thus, the Appellant who was defendant at the trial Court is not disputing the amount of money or in any other way trying to negate the claim, his complaint is with the regularity of the process the Respondent used at the trial Court to activate judicial process to get the money back.

From the above, it is clear that the general position is that a Writ of Summons should be marked undefended by the Court before it be placed on the undefended list. See also Bayero v Mainasara & Sons Ltd (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) Pg. 391; (2006) LPELR-75587 CA, Nwakanma v Iko Local Government of Cross Rivers & Ors (Supra), Enye v Ogbu(2003) 10 NWLR (Pt.828) Pg. 403; (2003) LPELR-7152 CA, Obaro v Sale Hassan (2013) LPELR-20089 SC.
The point being made by the Appellant’s counsel is that the Writ must have been marked as undefended on 18/05/09 when it was issued by the Registrar. He seems to be of the view that the trial judge is to issue the Writ and mark it undefended after hearing the ex-parte application. The Respondent’s counsel seems to have no clear answer to the point except to urge this Court to do substantial justice rather than technical justice. This point can easily be clarified by one of the old Supreme Court authorities on this issue, Olubusola Stores v Standard Bank (1975) LPELR- 2610; (1975) 1 All NLR 125; (1975) 4 SC 37, Coker JSC made us understand in his usual profound manner the reason for the technicality of the procedure in Or 3 r 9 of the old rules of the Supreme Court which were applicable to the High Court of Lagos at the time and are essentially in pari materia with the same provisions in Or 23 r 1 of the Bendel State High Court Rules being interpreted in this case at hand. His Lordship stated as follows:-
“The provisions dealing with actions on the undefended list are apparently technical and we think that they are purposely created in that way in order to ensure that by asking the plaintiff to comply strictly with the Rules, injustice is being avoided to a defendant whose freedom to defend the case has been rather restricted. The provisions of the Rules are designed as they are in order to ensure the safeguards which must necessarily be available to a defendant if the Rules are followed strictly; and if those rules are complied with, the defendant need suffer no prejudice in his defence if he himself and on his part has complied with the rules”.
His Lordship explained further:
“The rule prescribes clearly that an action which is meant to be on the undefended list should be commenced by a Writ but such Writ should be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts of the case and other matters described in that Rule which would satisfy the Court to enter the suit for hearing in what shall be called the undefended list. After the Writ has been so marked, the usual copy for service would be delivered to the defendant and one of the two alternatives would follow”.
It is clear therefore that a plaintiff starts the process by applying for a Writ of Summons. The Writ must be filed with a motion on notice supported by affidavit. It is that same Writ that would be marked undefended AFTER the Order of the Court and served on the Defendant along with other processes. Every Writ is issued by the Registrar of the Court.
I agree wholeheartedly with Respondent’s counsel that the purport of Order 23 is not to mandate the judge to issue a Writ of Summons but the placement of the Writ in the appropriate cause list for hearing. In essence, what the trial judge did was not issuance of Writ of Summons on the undefended list by the Order made on the 26th May, 2009. See Waade Investment Nig. Limited & Anor v Trade Bank Plc (Supra).
There is a presumption of regularity in favour of the Writ of Summons that it was marked after the Order had been given by the trial judge and not before. There is no evidence before this Court stating otherwise except the postulations of learned Appellants counsel. I have to believe that the process of marking the Writ of Summons AFTER the exparte Order was done regularly.
Even if I agree for the sake of argument that the Writ was indeed marked ‘undefended’ by the Registrar before the Order was given, the act has been regularised by the Order of Court given on the 26th May, 2009.

The collective contemporary wisdom of the superior courts have moved from enforcing technicality in our adversarial system of jurisprudence to determining causes on the merits. Any procedure that has not adversely affected the decision of the Court to cause gross miscarriage of justice can be forgiven so that technicality would not reign over justice. The issue has to be resolved in favour of the Respondent.

It is interesting to note that the Appellant has not said he does not owe the respondent the sum of N10,488,678.80 (Ten Million, Four Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira, Eighty Kobo) or any other sum of money for that matter. The Appellant is now contending the regularity of the Court process the respondent has used to ask for his money back. That issue has been resolved against the Appellant.

We have NOT been called upon here to determine whether the trial judge was wrong to hold that after a consideration of the notice of intention to defend and affidavit in support of same and arguments of the Appellant’s counsel that the appellant had no defence to the claim and to enter judgment for the Respondent. The narrow technical point of law, subject of the complaint of the Appellant has been considered. However, it is apt to also point out that the Respondent at the trial Court had initiated a suit against the Appellant for money he was owed for the supply of AGO (Diesel). Both parties had their say before the learned trial judge.

A defendant who has no real defence to the action should not be allowed to dribble and frustrate the plaintiff and cheat him out of the judgment he is legitimately entitled to by the delay tactics aimed, not offering any real defence to the action, but at gaining time within which he may continue to postpone meeting his obligation and indebtedness. It is unfortunate that this appears to be what is at play here.

In the circumstances, the sole issue for reasons stated above is resolved against the Appellant. Appeal Dismissed. N100,000 costs to the Respondent against the Appellant.

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I was opportuned to read the lead judgment in draft just delivered by my learned sister H.M. OGUNWUMIJU, JCA.

Having carefully perused the briefs of learned counsel for both parties and the judgment of the lower Court, I am in total agreement with the reasoning and conclusions therein and I have nothing more useful to add. This appeal is unmeritorious; it fails and is accordingly dismissed by me. I abide by my Lord’s order as to costs.

HELEN AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: I have before now, read the judgment just delivered by my brother HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JCA.

I fully agree and associate with her reasoning to the effect that technicalities have since been disowned and jettisoned by the Nigerian Courts in favour of substantial justice. The ploy being engaged by the appellants is to delay the respondent (Judgment Creditors), the benefit of his judgment which should not be allowed by this Court.

I heartily therefore join my Lord in dismissing this appeal for want of any merit at all. I equally agree that the respondents are entitled to the costs of this action as assessed in the lead judgment.

Appearances

S. O. Uwode, Esq. For Appellant

AND

T. K. Thomas, Esq. For Respondent