AGBENI v. STATE
(2020)LCN/14378(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, June 25, 2020
CA/B/11C/2010
Before Our Lordships:
Oyebisi Folayemi Omoleye Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
OLUSOLA AGBENI APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT BRIEFS OF ARGUMENT MUST CONTAIN ISSUES ARISING FROM THE NOTICE AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Indeed, the brief became incurably incompetent for containing issues which did not arise from a competent notice and grounds of appeal – see Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, (Supra). See also the cases of: (1) Osinupebi v. Saibu & Ors. (1982) LPELR-2808 (SC); (2)Saiki v. Simon & Ors. (2010) LPELR-8968 (CA); (3) Korede v. Adedokun (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 736) p. 483; (4) Ekwulugo v. A.C.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) p. 30 and (5)Ohajunwa v. Obelle (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1073) p. 52 at pgs. 74-75, paras. H-A. PER OMOLEYE, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT AN INCOMPETENT BRIEF OF ARGUMENT IS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK OUT BY THE COURT
The law is well settled that, an incompetent brief of argument is liable to be struck out by the Court – See the cases of: (1) Adehi v. Atega & Ors. (1995) LPELR-96 (SC); (2) Adefemi v. Abegunde (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 303) P. 2009 at P. 2125 (SC); (3) IGP v. Gloria (2009) LPELR-8737 (CA) and (4) Ojigho v. Mukoro & Ors. (2013) LPELR-2087 (CA). PER OMOLEYE, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT AN APPEAL IS PROPERLY ARGUED ON A COMPETENT AND VALID BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
The law is settled that an appeal is properly argued on a competent and valid brief of argument. That is to say, a competent appeal must be supported by a competent brief of argument. Where there is therefore no brief or no competent brief of argument to support an appeal, the appeal is rendered nugatory and indeterminable. This, in accordance to law, was my position in the earlier case of: Nwabudike & Anor. v. Omokaro (2010) LPELR-4637 where I had the following to say:
“The law is trite that appeals are heard on briefs of argument filed by parties. Any notice and grounds of appeal not supported by a brief of argument cannot be effectively heard and determined.”
There is no reason for me to recant from my above stated earlier position. Also, this Court in another earlier case of Adebayo v. State (2010) LPELR-9022 per Ogunbiyi, JCA [as he then was, now JSC (Rtd.)] had the following to say on this trite legal position:
“An appeal is therefore properly argued on a brief of argument, the absence which renders the appeal liable for dismissal for want of prosecution. In other words, a competent appeal ought to be supported by a brief of argument. The brief having been struck out for incompetence, there is therefore nothing left on which to hear or consider and determine the appeal, which same should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See the decision of this Court in the case of M. O. Sekoni v. U.T.C Nigeria Plc. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) 283 at 300 per Salami JCA as he then was.”
See also the cases of: (1) Ahmed v. Ahmed & Ors. (2013) LPELR-21143 (SC); (2) Adehi v. Atega & Ors. (Supra); (3) Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and (4) Okoh & Ors v. Nwobodo & Anor. (2017) LPELR-42726 (CA). In the case of:Ahmed v. Ahmed & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC (Rtd.) succinctly captured this point as follows:
“It begs the question whether there could arise an appeal without being founded on a notice of appeal as its initiating process nor could an appeal be properly constituted without the appellant’s brief of argument.
… there can be no question of the point being decisive in the matter. It all comes down to the fact that the amended Notice of Appeal and the appellant’s brief of argument must be valid and competent processes in order to sustain an appeal as the instant substantive appeal, as otherwise however brilliantly the appeal is decided, the decision cannot stand where in the end the Amended Notice of Appeal and the appellant’s brief of argument are found to be invalid and incompetent.” PER OMOLEYE, J.C.A.
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ondo State Okitipupa Division sitting in Akure, per Bola, J (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) delivered on 16th of June, 2008, in Suit No. HOK/11C/2005.
The brief background facts of this matter from the perspective of the Respondent are that, on the 1st of October, 2004, the Appellant Olusola Agbeni was involved in a violent argument with a Police Officer Segun Ogunmoye, PW4, over an allegation that the said Police Officer and some unnamed colleagues of his, prior to that day, unlawfully dispossessed the Appellant of his money during a stop and search exercise. During the said argumentation, the deceased Ayanfe Ogunyemi, who was said to be a friend of the Appellant, reprimanded the Appellant and this led to a fracas between the deceased and the Appellant. The Appellant then left the scene and shortly thereafter returned and stabbed the deceased in the chest with a sharp object, yea, a knife. The said Police Officer PW4 who was in a Pharmacy Store nearby tried without success to apprehend the Appellant
1
who eventually fled from the scene. The Appellant was however arrested by a team of Policemen a few days after the incident. At the close of Police investigation of the case, the Appellant was charged with the offence of murder and arraigned on a one count charge as follows:
“That you Olusola Agbeni ‘M’ on the 1st day of October, 2004 at about 11 p.m. along College road, Igbokoda in the Okitipupa magisterial district did unlawfully kill one Ayanfe Ogunyemi ‘M’ by stabbing him on the chest and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 316 and punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 30, Vol. II, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 1978.”
On the 1st of February, 2006, the case proceeded to trial and the Appellant entered a plea of “not guilty”. In its bid to establish the offence of murder with which the Appellant was charged, the Respondent as prosecution fielded six witnesses and tendered in evidence five sets of exhibits, that is, Exhibits A-A1, B, C, D, and E. On the other part, the Appellant as the accused person in defence of the charge against him testified, fielded one additional
2
witness and tendered one document in evidence, that is, Exhibit F. Sequel to the close of the parties’ cases, their respective counsel rendered oral addresses in substantiation of their varied positions in the case. The decision of the trial Court in the case was thereafter delivered on the 16th day of June, 2008. In convicting the Appellant as charged, the trial Court in its said decision held ‘inter alia’ as follows:
“In this case, the Prosecution has discharged the burden placed on it by Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act when it proved all the elements of the offence of murder the accused is charged with. No defence enure (Sic) in favour of the accused to exculpate him of the Criminal responsibility of the offence. The behavior of the accused was murderous. The law must take its natural course.
In conclusion, I find the accused person guilty as charged. He will face the Supreme punishment prescribed in Section 391(1) of the Criminal Code Law (Supra).”
The trial Court therefore sentenced the Appellant to death by hanging by the neck.
The Appellant was displeased by the said decision of the trial Court and
3
therefore filed this appeal against it to this Court vide his original notice of appeal dated 30th of June, 2008 – see page 125 of the record of appeal. The Appellant subsequently turned in another notice of appeal dated 3rd of June, 2008 and filed on the 7th of July, 2008 – see pages 127 to 128 of the record of appeal.
In compliance with the rules of this Court, briefs of argument were purportedly filed for the parties by their respective counsel. The brief titled Appellant’s brief of argument was settled by Oloja O. J. Semudara of the law firm of Juwon Semudara & Co., Tunrayo Chambers. Oloja O. J. Semudara thereon however styled himself as (COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT) – see the front page of the said Appellant’s brief. The said Appellant’s brief dated the 27th of February, 2010 was filed on the 2nd of March, 2010. The two issues identified for the resolution of the appeal therein read as follows:
“(a) Whether or not there is proper evaluation and appraisal of evidence in this matter? (GROUNDS 1, 2, 4, 6 AND 7)
(b) Whether all the essential ingredients of murder are proof (Sic) in this matter? (GROUNDS 3, 5 and 8)”
4
The Respondent’s brief of argument dated the 3rd of May, 2012 filed on the 4th of May, 2012 was deemed properly filed on the 3rd of December, 2012. The two issues donated for determination in the Appellant’s brief were adopted in the Respondent’s brief of argument.
The appeal was heard by this Court on the 18th of March, 2020. On that date, the Appellant who is obviously in custody was however not represented in Court by any counsel and without any excuse. We were satisfied that hearing notice was duly served on the Appellant’s counsel on the 12th of March, 2020 for the day’s proceedings, the appeal was therefore deemed duly argued pursuant to the provisions of Order 19 Rule 9 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 which provides that:
“When an appeal is called and the parties have been duly served with the notice of hearing, but if any party or any Legal Practitioner appearing for him does not appear to present oral argument even though briefs have been filed by all the parties concerned in the appeal, the appeal will be treated as having been duly argued.”
5
However, on the said hearing date, Mr. F. O. Oye, Director of Corporate Law, Ministry of Justice, Ondo State represented the Respondent. He identified and adopted the Respondent’s brief of argument. He urged upon this Court to dismiss the appeal for being lacking in merit and uphold the judgment of the trial Court.
With the state of the processes of the Appellant in this appeal, it is quite impossible for us to determine the Appellant’s complaint against the decision of the trial Court being appealed by him. As stated earlier in this judgment, the original notice of appeal is the one dated 30th of June, 2008 contained in page 125 of the record of appeal. In the said notice of appeal, the omnibus ground of appeal reads:
“1. That the decision of the High Court is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard (Sic) the weight of evidence.”
In addition to the above, the Appellant indicated the intention that he would be filing additional grounds of appeal upon the receipt of the record of the proceedings of the trial Court in the matter – see page 125 of the record of appeal. Notwithstanding, another notice of appeal dated the
6
3rd day of July, 2008 was filed on the 7th day of July, 2008 – see pages 127 to 128 of the record of appeal. I have examined the entire record of appeal as well as the case file of the appeal but found that no application was filed by the Appellant to seek and obtain the leave of either the trial Court or this Court before the said second notice to appeal was filed. What is more, the said second notice of appeal is not even titled an amended notice of the appeal as ordinarily required under the law.
The law is trite that, grounds of appeal are normally contained in and filed along with the notice of appeal and until there is an amendment of the notice of appeal to substitute new grounds of appeal with the leave of either the lower Court or appellate Court, the question of arguing new grounds of appeal in the brief of argument does not arise. There is no doubt in the instant matter that the Appellant intended to amend his existing or original notice of appeal dated the 30th of June, 2009 by filing an amended notice of appeal incorporating in it new or additional grounds of appeal. However, it is evident in the given circumstances of this matter that
7
the Appellant failed woefully to take the procedural steps required of him. He neglected to follow the steps of seeking and obtaining, the leave of Court to amend the existing notice of appeal, setting out the proposed additional grounds of appeal and then filing of an amended notice of appeal to incorporate the additional grounds. The effect of that neglect is that those grounds of appeal argued in the Appellant’s brief of argument were invalid. Indeed, the brief became incurably incompetent for containing issues which did not arise from a competent notice and grounds of appeal – see Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, (Supra). See also the cases of: (1) Osinupebi v. Saibu & Ors. (1982) LPELR-2808 (SC); (2)Saiki v. Simon & Ors. (2010) LPELR-8968 (CA); (3) Korede v. Adedokun (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 736) p. 483; (4) Ekwulugo v. A.C.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) p. 30 and (5)Ohajunwa v. Obelle (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1073) p. 52 at pgs. 74-75, paras. H-A.
Let me pause here to consider another very grave defect so patent on the face of the notice of appeal upon which the Appellant’s brief of argument was purportedly
8
predicated. The said notice of appeal was not signed personally by the Appellant but was signed by his Counsel, Oloja O. J. Semudara. This was done in defiance of the provisions of Order 17 Rule 4(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules (Supra) mandating every notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal or notice of application for extension of time within which such notice shall be given, in a criminal appeal, to be signed by the Appellant himself. The exceptions to the provisions are contained in Order 17 Rule 4(5) and (6) where the appellant is of unsound mind or a body corporate respectively, which apparently has not been shown to be the case in the instant matter. In the case of: Uwazurike & Ors. V. A.-G., Federation (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) P. 1, the Apex Court per Ogbuagu, JSC (of blessed memory) held as follows:
“The statutory provision is that every notice of appeal shall be signed by the appellant himself and no other (including Counsel) …
The provision is not only clear and unambiguous but it is mandatory …
It is plain to me that there is no reason in the records why Chief Ahamba (SAN) signed the said notice of
9
appeal and the amended notice of appeal …I am also not in doubt that from all intents and purposes from the facts I have stated herein before, that Chief Ahamba (SAN) had access to the appellants who he should have made to sign the said notice of appeal and as amended. He was clearly in error when he signed them. I so hold. In the case of: The State v. Jammal (1996) 9 NWLR (pt. 473) 384 at 399 C.A., it was held that the Court of Appeal ought to take judicial notice of the fact and law, that a notice of appeal in a criminal appeal filed in the lower Court or trial Court which was signed by a Counsel for the appellant instead of the appellant himself is defective by virtue of Order 4 Rule 4(1) of the Court of Appeal rules, 1981. That the provisions are clear, unambiguous and mandatory. That the notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant himself and not by his Counsel.”
As stated above, the notice of appeal dated 3rd of July, 2008, filed on the 7th of July, 2008 was not personally signed by the Appellant. The Appellant’s Counsel, Oloja O. J. Semudara has not indicated that the Appellant was of unsound mind and therefore incapable of
10
signing the notice of appeal or that the Appellant was unaccessible to counsel to have the Appellant sign the notice of appeal. Also, obviously, the Appellant is not a body corporate within the ambit of the provisions of Order 17 Rule 4(6) of the Rules of this Court. For the foregoing reason, the said notice of appeal upon which the Appellant’s brief of argument had been predicated is wholly invalid and incompetent.
It is equally pertinent at this juncture to observe that the record of appeal in this appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on the 27th of January, 2010. Sequel to the transmission of the record of appeal and the filing of the Appellant’s brief of argument on the 2nd of March, 2010, I will come to this point later, the Appellant’s Counsel filed a couple of applications at this Court. First, by a motion on notice dated the 1st of December, 2012, the Appellant sought the leave of this Court to amend the existing Appellant’s brief of argument. Secondly, the Appellant, vide a motion on notice dated 2nd of April, 2013, filed on 2nd of April, 2013, sought the leave of this Court to amend the notice of appeal dated
11
3rd of July, 2008. However, on the 9th of April, 2013, the two applications were withdrawn by the Appellant’s Counsel and both were accordingly struck out by this Court. So it could correctly be stated that the extant and valid notice of appeal before this Court in the appeal is the one dated the 30th of June, 2008.
Now, on the status and validity of the extant Appellant’s brief of argument dated 27th of February, 2010, filed on the 2nd of March, 2010, the brief is said to be predicated on the notice of appeal dated 3rd day of July, 2008, filed on 7th July, 2008, – see paragraph 1.04 at page 1 of the brief. The two issues identified in the brief for the resolution of the appeal were purportedly distilled from eight grounds of appeal. Without any equivocation, the notice of appeal filed on the 7th of July, 2008 having been pronounced invalid is no longer capable of being the substratum of any brief of argument. Moreover, as stated earlier, the said extant notice of appeal contains a sole ground of appeal. To make matters worse, even if the notice of appeal filed on the 7th of July, 2008 were competent, (and it is not competent), can it
12
be said that the notice contains eight grounds of appeal? “Ex facie” the notice, it can be observed that, there are three grounds listed under the heading “grounds of appeal”, while immediately after, under the heading, “particulars of error” are paragraphs numbered “(1), (4), (5), (6) and (7)” and thereafter is another heading, “particulars of error” with paragraphs numbered “(i), (ii), (iii), (8) and (9).” The answer to my above posed question is therefore in the negative. Nay, the said notice of appeal can definitely not be said to contain eight grounds of appeal. Simply put, in any way that it may be perceived, the notice of appeal dated the 3rd of July, 2008, filed on the 7th of July, 2008, upon which the extant brief of argument of the Appellant was predicated cannot be said to be competent, it is utterly incompetent.
Furthermore, the rules of this Court relating to the filling of the Appellant’s brief of argument is quite trite. The Appellant’s brief of argument must be filed within forty-five days of the transmission of the record of appeal of the trial Court to
13
this Court or within the period extended by this Court to so do. The law is equally trite that the issues identified for determination in the Appellant’s brief of argument must arise from the grounds of appeal as well as amended grounds of appeal or additional grounds of appeal as the case may be – see Order 19 Rules 2 and 3(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016.
There is thence the necessity for an appellant’s brief to comply with the Rules of Court, this has been the settled position of the Courts in their various strata. The Apex Court per Agbaje, JSC (of blessed memory) way back in the case of:Onifade v. Olayiwola & Ors. (1990) LPELR-2680 had the following to say on this point:
“Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed. (See Ratnam v. Cumarasamy (1965) 1 W.L.R 8). It is the Court which can extend an indulgence to a party in a case before it can depart from the rules. See Finding v. Finding (1939) 2 All E.R. 173 at 177. The Courts have an inherent jurisdiction to ensure compliance by litigants with the rules of Court and to strike out any process not filed in compliance with the relevant rules.
14
See Reichel v. Magrath (1889) 14 App. Cas. 665; Huntly v. Gaskell No. 1 (1905) 2 Ch. 655; Nixon v. Loundes (1909)2 I R.R. I.”
It is also rudimentary law that, issues for determination in a brief of argument not based on valid grounds of appeal will ordinarily be discountenanced by the Court. The situations in the instant matter are very bad. Since the two issues for determination are not related to the sole ground in the extant notice of appeal, dated the 30th of June, 2008, the said two issues with the submissions proffered thereunder are based on non-existent grounds of appeal. Worst still, as stated above, the Appellant’s brief was filed about one and a half years after the record of appeal of the trial Court was transmitted to this Court and without an extended time sought and obtained by the Appellant from the Court before the doing of same. This was in defiance of Order 19 Rule 2 of the Rules of this Court. With the state of the Appellant’s brief, it is impossible to grapple with the case intended to be proposed by the Appellant in this appeal.
The effect of all the above stated situations is that the Appellant has utterly failed
15
to comply with the rules pertaining to the filing of an Appellant’s brief of argument. The serious irregularity has rendered his brief of argument in this appeal incompetent. The law is well settled that, an incompetent brief of argument is liable to be struck out by the Court – See the cases of: (1) Adehi v. Atega & Ors. (1995) LPELR-96 (SC); (2) Adefemi v. Abegunde (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 303) P. 2009 at P. 2125 (SC); (3) IGP v. Gloria (2009) LPELR-8737 (CA) and (4) Ojigho v. Mukoro & Ors. (2013) LPELR-2087 (CA). In the instant matter, the result of the incompetent Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 27th of February, 2010 file on 2nd March, 2010 is therefore the penalty of a striking out. Consequently, I hereby strike out the said brief accordingly.
The implication of declaring the Appellant’s brief of argument incompetent is tantamount to the non-existence of the brief. The law is settled that an appeal is properly argued on a competent and valid brief of argument. That is to say, a competent appeal must be supported by a competent brief of argument. Where there is therefore no brief or no competent brief of argument to
16
support an appeal, the appeal is rendered nugatory and indeterminable. This, in accordance to law, was my position in the earlier case of: Nwabudike & Anor. v. Omokaro (2010) LPELR-4637 where I had the following to say:
“The law is trite that appeals are heard on briefs of argument filed by parties. Any notice and grounds of appeal not supported by a brief of argument cannot be effectively heard and determined.”
There is no reason for me to recant from my above stated earlier position. Also, this Court in another earlier case of Adebayo v. State (2010) LPELR-9022 per Ogunbiyi, JCA [as he then was, now JSC (Rtd.)] had the following to say on this trite legal position:
“An appeal is therefore properly argued on a brief of argument, the absence which renders the appeal liable for dismissal for want of prosecution. In other words, a competent appeal ought to be supported by a brief of argument. The brief having been struck out for incompetence, there is therefore nothing left on which to hear or consider and determine the appeal, which same should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See the decision of this Court in the case
17
of M. O. Sekoni v. U.T.C Nigeria Plc. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) 283 at 300 per Salami JCA as he then was.”
See also the cases of: (1) Ahmed v. Ahmed & Ors. (2013) LPELR-21143 (SC); (2) Adehi v. Atega & Ors. (Supra); (3) Madukolu v. Nkemdilim and (4) Okoh & Ors v. Nwobodo & Anor. (2017) LPELR-42726 (CA). In the case of:Ahmed v. Ahmed & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC (Rtd.) succinctly captured this point as follows:
“It begs the question whether there could arise an appeal without being founded on a notice of appeal as its initiating process nor could an appeal be properly constituted without the appellant’s brief of argument.
… there can be no question of the point being decisive in the matter. It all comes down to the fact that the amended Notice of Appeal and the appellant’s brief of argument must be valid and competent processes in order to sustain an appeal as the instant substantive appeal, as otherwise however brilliantly the appeal is decided, the decision cannot stand where in the end the Amended Notice of Appeal and the appellant’s brief of argument are found to be
18
invalid and incompetent.”
Having found that the extant Notice of Appeal dated the 30th of June, 2008 was unsupported by an Appellant’s brief of Argument, there is nothing left for us to consider in the appeal that we have been called upon to determine. The substructure of the appeal has been knocked-out. The appeal is irreparably damaged and liable for dismissal.
Before making my terminal pronouncements on the appeal, I consider it very pertinent to state at this juncture that this judgment delivered on the 25th of June, 2020 ought to have been delivered on the 17th of June, 2020. The slight delay in the said delivery was as a result of lockdowns by the Federal Government of Nigeria of interstate travels and the Courts in Nigeria including the Court of Appeal by the Chief Justice of Nigeria to enable safeguard the health of Judges/Justices and all citizens in the nation during this Covid-19 pandemic period.
Conclusively, by the provisions of Order 18 Rule 10(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules (Supra), where an Appellant fails to file his brief within the time provided for in Order 18 Rule 2 of the said Rules of this Court or within the
19
time extended by the Court, the Court may “suo motu” dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We have found that this appeal is not supported by an appellant’s brief and the Appellant failed to seek and obtain an extended time to file the brief. The case of the Appellant is further compounded by the fact that, even at the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant’s Counsel was absent without any excuse. The appeal is without equivocation liable for dismissal for reckless abandonment and want of diligent prosecution.
Consequent upon the foregoing elucidations, the Appeal No. CA/B/11C/2010 is hereby accordingly dismissed.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of glancing at the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Oyebisi Folayemi Omoleye, JCA who painstakingly perused the Record of Appeal transmitted to this Court and found that the extant Notice of Appeal dated 30th of June, 2008 was unsupported by an Appellant’s Brief of Argument to enable the consideration of the appeal and its determination. I subscribe to the same opinion and therefore dismissed the appeal in its entirety in accordance
20
with the Provision of Order 18 Rule 10(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016.
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.: I read in advance the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, O. F. OMOLEYE, JCA, and I agree with him that this appeal lacks merit. He properly addressed both the issues canvassed and those that arose in the appeal. I agree with His Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion which I adopt in dismissing this very old appeal.
21
Appearances:
Mr. F. O. Oye DCL, MOJ, Ondo State with him, Miss R. T. Oropo SLO For Appellant(s)
The Appellant and Counsel was absent For Respondent(s)