AHMADU BA’AGO & ORS v. UBANDOMA ATUWO & ORS (2018)

AHMADU BA’AGO & ORS v. UBANDOMA ATUWO & ORS

(2018)LCN/10900(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 23rd day of February, 2018

CA/S/83/2015

RATIO

BURDEN OF PROOF: THE PARTY WHOM CLAIMS TITLE MUST SHOW OUTRIGHT DECLARATION OF SUCH LAND
In land cases, the burden of proof is always on the party who is claiming that the parcel of land belongs to him to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to a declaration that the land actually belongs to him. The law on the subject is and will always be that the Claimant will have to rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendant. Where this onus is not discharged the weakness of the Defendant?s case will not be of any help to him. But where the case of the Defendant lends credence to the case of the Claimant, the Court may take it into consideration in reaching a conclusion on the dispute as to which of the sides to believe. These are like some of the religious mantra associated with land disputes and relied upon for all times by Courts of law dealing with such disputes in Nigeria. See KODILINYE vs. ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337; WOLUCHEM vs. GUDI (1981) 5 SC 291 and a host of other decisions in that light. PER FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION OF A COURT: WHETHER A THE COURT IS JUSTIFIED TO GIVE JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF PARTY(S) WHO ARE NOT PARTY TO THE SUIT

On the question of whether the Court below was justified in giving judgment in favour of Shanga Local Government Council which was not a party in the dispute between the parties, the settled position of the law is that as a general rule, no person is to be adversely affected by a judgment in an action to which he was not a party. In the words of the Apex Court per MOHAMMED, JSC in the case of BABATOLA vs. ALADEJANA (2001) LPELR-696 SC the noble Lord had this to say on the subject; “It is a well settled law and practice that the Court cannot give a judgment against a person who will be affected by its decision if such person is not made a party or has no opportunity of defending the suit. The Court has no jurisdiction to decide the fate of a person or matter concerning him when such person is not made a party to the action.” On the flip side of this position is the fact that a person who is not a party to an action will be precluded from equally taking benefit of a judgment of an action to which he was not a party. PER FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: WHEN CAN A PARTY TO A DISPUTE IN LAND PROOF TITLE TO SUCH LAND
On the question of whether the Appellants as Plaintiffs established their root of title by credible evidence before the Court below, the averments of the Appellants at paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are clearly instructive. In support of these averments, the Appellants called and relied on the testimonies of the PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. It is important to note that the witnesses of the Appellants from the PW1 to PW4, held strongly on the traditional evidence of the Appellants and from the records, they were hardly challenged or contradicted on the traditional history of the Appellants. The witnesses in their testimonies further established the identity of the parcel of land in dispute and from the records once again, it is clear that their testimonies were neither challenged nor contradicted by the Respondents. This Court cannot therefore help but to hold that the Appellants as Plaintiffs established their claim to title of the parcel of the land in dispute. PER FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A

JUSTICES

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. AHMADU BA’AGO
2. ANTHONY BA’AGO
3. MENKE KANCHI
4. AUTA USMAN Appellant(s)

AND

1. UBANDOMA ATUWO
2. IBRAHIM YABANYA
3. ADA ADO
4. MANU MAGAJI
5. ALI SABON GIDA
6. BALA TELA
7. IBRAHIM TAALA (GOAT SELLER) Respondent(s)

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kebbi State, sitting at Yauri Judicial Division in Suit No. KB/YR/HC/3CV/2014 and delivered on the 25-6-2014 wherein the Court below gave judgment in favour of the Respondents as Defendants. On the 23-4-2014 the Appellants as Claimants took out a writ of summons and statement of claim against the Respondents as Defendants wherein they claimed as per their paragraph 20 of their Joint Statement of Defense as follows;
?WHEREOF the claimants pray this Hon. Court for the following reliefs;
1. A declaration that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th claimants are the owners of the land in dispute with the boundaries as stated above, lying and situate at Danbango Village in Shanga Local Government Area of Kebbi State.
2. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their privies and assignees from further ascertaining and interfering with the claimants? ownership of the land.
?3. A declaration that the continuous entry and working on the land by the defendants, their privies or assignees amount to trespass.
4. The cost of this action.
5. Any other order as this Hon. Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

Upon being served with the originating processes respondents as defendants denied the claims against them and thereafter issues were joined between the parties. The claimants/appellants called four (4) witnesses in an attempt to prove their case and closed the same on 14th May 2014; see paragraph 1.4 of the record at page 76. On 2nd day of June, 2014, the respondents as defendants called five (5) witnesses, tendered some exhibits and closed their case, i.e. Exhibits A-B 26, at pages 75 to 91 of the record. At the close of trial and after the address of Counsel, Court below delivered a well considered judgment in the matter on the 25-06-2014 dismissing the appellants? suits.

Dissatisfied with the said judgment of the Court below, the Appellants have brought this appeal before this Court vide a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 25-08-2015. There are four (4) Grounds of appeal filed which are reproduced without their particulars as follows;
GROUNDS OF APPEAL;
1. The Lower Court erred in law when it purported to give the Shanga Local Government Council the control and management of the land in dispute between the parties.
2. The Lower Court erred in law when it held the claim of the Appellants has not been supported by the pleadings and evidence.
3. The Lower Court erred in law when it held that the statement of claim of the Appellants itself is self defeating, contradictory and imprecise.
4. The decision is against the weight of evidence.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION;
Three (3) issues were nominated by the Appellant for the determination of the Court thus;
1. Whether the Lower Court was right in giving judgment in favour of Shanga Local Government council which was not a party in the dispute between the parties.
2. Whether the appellants have pleaded sufficient facts and led enough evidence to prove their case on the balance of probability.
3. Whether the holding of the trial Court that the appellant’s statement of claim is self-defeating, contradictory and imprecise is not perverse.

?The Appellants? Brief of argument was settled by P. C. ONYENOBI ESQ., while the Respondents neither filed a Respondents? Brief of Argument nor were they represented in Court despite prove of service of processes on them. At the hearing of this Appeal on the 16-1-2018, learned Counsel for the Appellants adopted his Brief of argument on behalf of the Appellants, urged this Court to resolve this Appeal in favour of the Appellants. In essence therefore, the Respondents filed no brief of argument in this Appeal. The implication of this, legally speaking is that the Respondents are deemed to have conceded to the points raised in the brief of argument of the Appellants herein. See the cases of JOHN HOLT VENTURES LTD vs. OPUTA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 470) 101; ONYEJEKWE vs. THE NIGERIA POLICE COUNCIL (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 463) 704; UBA PLC vs. AJILEYE (1999) 13 NWLR (PT. 653) 116; This being an Appeal, however, the Appellants still have the obligation to succeed or fail on the strength of their case. It is not in the character of the Court of Appeal to accept hook, line and sinker the allegations contained in the Appellants? brief without critically examining whether or not the Reliefs claimed are grantable or sustainable in view of the prevailing law and circumstances applicable to the case in question. That is exactly what this Court is out to do in this Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL;
ISSUE ONE;
Whether the Lower Court was right in giving judgment in favour of Shanga Local Government council which was not a party in the dispute between the parties?

Counsel in making his submissions under this issue, began by conceding to the well settled principle of law that joinder or misjoinder of parties cannot vitiate an action before a Court of competent jurisdiction. He cited the case of ANYANWOKO vs. OKOYE (2010) 1-2 MJSC page 29 at 32 ratio 3. However, Counsel argued that failure to join a necessary party in an action in Court is bound to affect the outcome of the suit. On the question of who a necessary party is in an action, Counsel cited the case of AZUBUIKE vs. PDP (2014) 2 SCNJ at 48 ratio 1, where the Court held thus;
“A necessary party is one who being closely connected to a law suit, should be included in the case if feasible, but whose absence will not require dismissal of the proceeding”.

?Learned counsel contended that it is settled by a plethora of decided authorities that a person who was not made a party to a case cannot gain any advantage or suffer any loss judgment or ruling in that case. He cited the case of YUSUF vs. ADEYEMI (2009) 9 WRN 29 at 34-35 where the Apex Court per ADEKEYE, JSC held thus;
“A judgment or order made against a party who was not made a party to a pending suit is to no avail as he will not be bound by it.?

A fortiori, Counsel argued that such a party cannot gain any right in such suit. He cited the cases of NABARUMA vs. OFFODILE (2005) 1 WRN 47; IGE vs. FARINDE (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 354) 42 at 66 (SC); BABATOLA vs. OBA LADEJANA (2001) 6 NSCQR 1107 AT 1020 RATIO 7; KOKORO-OWO & ORS vs. LAGOS STATE GOVT. & ORS (2000) VOL. 6 NSCQR 615 @ 618 RATIOS 3 & 4 where the Supreme Court expressly held thus;
“The Court cannot make an order against a person who is neither a party nor privy to a proceeding before it. A.B. WALI JSC @ page 626.
A party to be affected by a decision must not be left-out of the action because no Court will make an order against any person who has not been heard or given opportunity to be heard.” S.M.A. BELGORE, JSC.

?The submission of Counsel is that since Shanga Local Government was not made a party to the suit and since it was not before the Lower Court to canvass ownership of the disputed parcel of land, the trial Court has no basis to suo moto award judgment to it in a matter wherein it did not participate or ask for any relief. Counsel contended that the Shanga Local Government not being a party in the said case can neither gain any advantage nor suffer any disadvantage in same. Counsel urged this Court to settle this issue in the negative and allow the appeal on issue one.

ISSUE TWO;
Whether the appellants have pleaded sufficient facts and led enough evidence to prove their case on the balance of probability.

The contention of Counsel is that by virtue of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended the burden of proof as therein stated is to be discharged on the balance of probabilities in all civil proceedings, where as in criminal proceedings it is beyond reasonable doubt. See ADELEKE & ORS vs. IYANDA & ORS (2001) 6 NSCQR VOL.6 PART 2 789-AT 802 RATIO 4. According to Counsel, the impact of this is that in civil suits proofs are by preponderance of evidence and on whom lies the burden of proof in land matters, the Supreme Court per S. O. UWAIFO, JSC had this to say on the subject;
?It is true that the burden is on a plaintiff to prove his case in a land matter, and when he fails to do this he cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case. In that sense the defendant bears burden to adduce any evidence. But where a plaintiff has produced evidence in support of his case which prima facie will entitle him to judgment, the defendants will need to lead some evidence to enable the Court to consider on whose side the case preponderates… and civil cases are not decided upon beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities?.

Arising from the foregoing, Counsel argued that the claimants in their joint statement of claim on page 5 of the record relied on traditional history as one of the five (5) ways of proving ownership or title to land. See the case of AIGBOBAHI vs. AIFUWA (2006) IJNSC 453 at 459 ratio 2; POPOOLA vs. BALOGUN @ 2 ORS (2007) 3 FWLR 4263 @ 4265 RATIO 1; AKINTERINWA vs. OLADUNJOYE (2000) VOL.2 SCNQR 151 @ 153 RATIOS 11, 12 & 13.

?Besides this, Counsel also argued that the claimants went further down to trace the root of their title to the land from their grandfather through whom it devolved unto them after his demise. He further said that it is also quite obvious that the boundaries of the land in dispute are accurately stated by the claimants in paragraph 19 of the joint statement of claim at page 7 of the record that the land in dispute is: …
(i) Bounded in the East by Danbango Village
(ii) West by Attuwo Village
(iii) North by DikkoMachido Village and
(iv) South by a forest.

Counsel further argued that at pages 102 and 103 of the record of appeal, the DW4 and DW5 stated contrarily on cross-examination that the land is bounded as follows:-
(i) In the North by DikkoGajere
(ii) In the West by Atuwo Village
(iii) In the South by a forest and
(iv) The East by Danbango Village.

Learned Counsel drew attention to the case of ABOGBAHI vs. AIFAWA (2006) 1 JNSC 453 at 462 ratio 9 where it was held that it is duty on a party seeking declaration of title to show with certainty the land to which his claim relates. Counsel contended that all the claimants’ witnesses from PW1

– PW4 held strongly on this piece of evidence and none of them was ever challenged or contradicted on the issue. Counsel against the backdrop of this position, submitted that it is crystal clear that the physical identity of the disputed land of the claimants was established, as they were not challenged or contradicted of which the effect is that the respondents have well accepted it. Besides, Counsel said that notwithstanding the afore stated facts on page 8 at line 16-19 of the judgment on page 114 on the record of appeal the Court below noted;
?The defendants denied the assertion of the claimants in paragraph 2-9 of their joint statement of claim and then averred that the land belongs to Shanga local government area and that the land was shared to interested farmers including the claimants on loan.?

?On a more serious note, Counsel contended that the claimants (1st – 3rd) maintained they were all born on that land and that whether they left the land uncultivated for a period of 20 years or more is immaterial. He argued in this regard that Shanga Local Government all the decades did not come forward to assume title of the land.

Similarly, Counsel argued that there is no law that says if you did not cultivate your farm land for a particular period of time you lose it to the Local Government or any other authority. He cited the case of OGUNLEYE vs. ONI (1990) 2 NWLR 745 AT 750 ratio 2 on the Right of a person not to be deprived of his land where it was held that;
?No one shall be deprived of his land unless the land is acquired compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Act e.g. for overriding public interest or for public purpose by the Local Government or State Government in accordance with and in such a case, compensation must be paid?.

Furthermore, Counsel argued that it is not out of place that sequel to the inception of the Land Use Act 1978 all lands in Urban areas within the State have been vested in the Governor of the State and those in the Rural Areas in the Local Government within the control and management of which the land is situate. He however referred Court to Section 36(2) of the Act, which stipulates;
?Any occupier or holder of such land, whether under customary rights or otherwise howsoever shall if that

land was on the commencement of this Decree being used for agricultural purposes continue to be entitled to possession of the land for use for agricultural purposes as if a customary right of occupancy had been granted to the occupier of holder thereof by the appropriate Local Government

The contention of Counsel is that the claimants claim is that factually speaking their forefathers deforested the land in dispute occupied and maintained exclusive and quiet enjoyment of same without let or hindrance overtime, till it devolved upon them, although they left it fallow for about 20 years, which means prior to the 20 years they were farming on the land. In this connection, Counsel called the attention of this Court to the testimony of the PW2 on cross examination that it will be up to 20 years that the land in dispute has not been cultivated by anybody and that they are living outside the land in dispute, on page 95 of the record.

?It was the argument of Counsel that the defendants may have capitalized on the fact that the land had laid fallow for up to 20 years or more to visit the claim of larches and acquiescence on the claimants but

further argued that the claimants/appellants cannot be said to have abandoned their land and the principle of larches and acquiescence or any other special defence cannot avail the respondents as they did not plead same. He cited the case of KODILINYE vs. ANATOGU (1964), WLR 1019, (1962), ALL NLR 691. See also the synopsis on page 315 last paragraph of Nigerian Land law by T.O Elias.

Counsel further contended that there is no evidence the Local Government ever acquired the land as it has never said so; the right of the claimants who have inherited the land in dispute from their fore fathers has not been revoked. Besides, Counsel said that it did not join itself as a party before the Court below. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants and allow the appeal on ground 2.

ISSUE THREE;
Whether the holding of the trial Court that the appellant’s statement of claim is self-defeating, contradictory and imprecise is not perverse?

The submission of Counsel here is that the whole gamut of the judgment of the Lower Court is predicated upon its assertion on page 9, lines 19-21 of the judgment of that Court at page 114 of the printed record where it settled that; ?

?Certainly a careful perusal of the whole statement of claim of the claimants is self-defeating, contradictory and imprecise.?

This Court is informed that this position was reached after the Court below raised the following questions on page 8 and 9 of the record thus….
1. ?In paragraph 3-10 of the statement of claim, the claimants averred they inherited the land and have been in active possession until recently when defendants trespassed, why then did they aver in paragraph 12-17 of the same statement of claim that Hakimi Aminu connived with them and the Chairman of Shanga local government to chase away the Fulani’s from the land in dispute?
2. If Hakimi Aminu only invited the Chairman for the purpose of chasing away the Fulani’s from the land in disputes, how did the Chairman cultivate the whole land in dispute, if at all the late Hakimi Aminu Manu gave Alh. Maitashi only the northern part of the land in dispute to graze?
3. If the claimants were truthful that they inheritable the land in dispute and have been in active possession until the acts of trespass of the

defendants why did they agree with the Local Government Chairman when he divided the land into 2 parts and gave the Fulani’s one part and the claimants the other?
4. If the land in dispute is actually inherited by the grand children of Antaki who are alive and have been in active possession of the land as per paragraphs 3 and 10 of the statement of claim what brought in the 4th claimant into the matter

In providing answers to the above raised questions, Counsel stated that there is no doubt that the claimants pleaded their acts of inheritance of the disputed land in paragraphs 3-10 of the statement of claim, but on the part of the defendants in paragraph 2 of their joint statement of defense, they denied their claim but went ahead to aver that they do not know the grand children of Antaki and also denied he is the founder of the land. Better still, Counsel further stated on paragraph 3 in furtherance of their denial of paragraph 10 of the claimants’ statement of claim, that they averred the land belongs to the Government, and on paragraph 6 of the defendants statement of defense, they averred again…
?The Hakimi Aminu did not invite local government to

cultivate on the land rather the chairman used his power to cultivate on the land. That the chairman used his power as Chairman of the Local Government of Shanga.?

Counsel contended that from the facts set out above the claimants claim that their great grandfather deforested the land is not in doubt because the defendants conceded the land has already been deforested before the coming or the Chairman of Shanga Local Government; that their only contention is that it was not the Hakimi Aminu that invited him, let the Court hold so. Counsel also argued that the pleading referred to by the Court below are no more than historical account of dealings in the land to show on what basis persons other than themselves ever use the land or any portion thereof. He added that Hakimi Aminu and the Local Government were at that material time(s) no more than the appellants’ ‘licensees’ and that the facts that neither Hakimi Aminu nor Shanga Local Government Council is contesting ownership of the land firmly buttress this argument.

?Learned Counsel argued that the whole issue of inviting Hakimi Aminu or the Shanga Local Government Chairman

into the land has been sufficiently pleaded and testified, is to get the Fulani trespassers out of the land and no more, whether the whole portion or part thereof was cultivated by the claimants is immaterial as it was never intended they will be there for all times and none of them claims the land.

Upon a dispassionate appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the appellant, Counsel also argued that it could be very easily deciphered that they used wisdom to invite the Hakimi and Shanga Local Government constituted authorities to make it easy for them to dislodge the Fulanis. The cat and dog relationship between cattle rearers and farmers is a common knowledge in this country.

On this question raised by the Court below, Counsel contended that it is on record, the claimants were never and did not at any point in time agree with the decision of the Local Government Chairman to divide the land in dispute among them, their reason for that is clearly stated on lines 11-15 at page 94 of the printed record thus…
?It is true I was given a document but we were deceived because the head was our leader?
The district head only told us that he got the bush

from the government from Birnin Kebbi and that the farmer which we used to cultivate within the bush will be left for us and that is why we collected the document from the district head…?

Upon these facts Counsel submitted that the claimants were in active possession of the land and that it is also crystal clear they invited the Local Government Chairman for a particular purpose before he deceived them into signing documents to the effect that the same land they were already in possession will be given back to them. Counsel however posed a question thus; who read and explained the documents to the illiterate appellants before they signed it.

Counsel also contended that in paragraphs 12-15 the claimants also stated how the Fulani’s entered into the land with the consent of late Hakimi of Attune through Alhaji Maitashi for grazing, that after the death of the Alhaji Maitashi, his surviving son was made the Sarki Fulani of Danbango. According to Counsel, Paragraphs 14 and 15 precisely now states how eventually the Chairman Shanga Local Government came into the land because it was the joint effort and belief of the claimants and Hakimi

Aminu that if they invite the Shanga Local Government Chairman into the farm, it will be easy for them to chase the Fulani’s from there. Unfortunately it was not so as the Shanga Local Government Chairman exceeded his bounds. On the issue of the position of the 4th claimant, the Court conceded the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd claimants are the great grandchildren of Antak who deforested the land and therefore actually inherited same, in that respect they have already pleaded sufficient evidence and that is the position of the law as stated in the case of BAMGBEHIN vs. OREHRE (2010) 6 SCNJ page 327 at 331 ratio 8.
?In a civil action where there is overwhelming evidence in proof of the claim before the trial Court, the plaintiff will have discharged the onus of proof placed upon him by law where he puts sufficient evidence in support of his claim.?

RESOLUTION OF APPEAL
?The dispute between the parties in this Appeal has arisen from a declaration of title to land. In land cases, the burden of proof is always on the party who is claiming that the parcel of land belongs to him to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to a

declaration that the land actually belongs to him. The law on the subject is and will always be that the Claimant will have to rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendant. Where this onus is not discharged the weakness of the Defendant?s case will not be of any help to him. But where the case of the Defendant lends credence to the case of the Claimant, the Court may take it into consideration in reaching a conclusion on the dispute as to which of the sides to believe. These are like some of the religious mantra associated with land disputes and relied upon for all times by Courts of law dealing with such disputes in Nigeria. See KODILINYE vs. ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337; WOLUCHEM vs. GUDI (1981) 5 SC 291 and a host of other decisions in that light.

There are five (5) ways of proving ownership of land or title to land in Nigeria. See IDUNDUN vs. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9/10 SC 227. But the one relied upon by the Appellants in this case is the traditional evidence or history. The question to therefore, address here is whether from the records the Appellants as Plaintiffs succeeded in establishing their

ownership claims to the parcel of land in dispute by proving traditional evidence. Before answering or attempting to find an answer to this question, it may be important to state a few salient principles of traditional history as follows:
(1) When once a party pleads and traces the root of title to a particular person or family, he must establish how that person came to have title vested in him. He cannot ignore proof of his overlord?s title and rely on long possession.
(2) Where the line of succession is not satisfactorily traced so as to eliminate any gaps or un-explainable gaps and linkages, such line of succession would be rejected.
On the question of whether the Appellants as Plaintiffs established their root of title by credible evidence before the Court below, the averments of the Appellants at paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are clearly instructive. In support of these averments, the Appellants called and relied on the testimonies of the PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. It is important to note that the witnesses of the Appellants from the PW1 to PW4, held strongly on the traditional evidence of the Appellants and from the records, they were hardly

challenged or contradicted on the traditional history of the Appellants. The witnesses in their testimonies further established the identity of the parcel of land in dispute and from the records once again, it is clear that their testimonies were neither challenged nor contradicted by the Respondents. This Court cannot therefore help but to hold that the Appellants as Plaintiffs established their claim to title of the parcel of the land in dispute.

The Court has no jurisdiction to decide the fate of a person or matter concerning him when such person is not made a party to the action.?
On the flip side of this position is the fact that a person who is not a party to an action will be precluded from equally taking benefit of a judgment of an action to which he was not a party. This Court simply finds it rather surprising that the Court below could grant the parcel of land in dispute to Shanga Local Government who was not made a party to the suit and was also not before the Court below to canvass ownership claims to the parcel of land in dispute. The finding of this Court therefore on the issue is that the trial Court has no basis whatsoever, to suo motu award judgment to Shanga Local Government in a matter wherein the Local Government did not participate or ask for any relief. Shanga Local Government not being a party in the said case can neither gain any advantage nor suffer any disadvantage in same and I so hold. There are legions of cases in support of this position.

?The Appeal therefore succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court of Kebbi State, sitting at

Yauri Judicial Division in Suit No. KB/YR/HC/3CV/2014 and delivered on the 25-6-2014 is hereby set aside. There shall be cost of N100,000.00 in favour of the Appellants against the Respondents.

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading, in advance, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Frederick O. Oho, JCA. I agree with the entire reasoning therein and the conclusion that the appeal has merit and should be allowed.

I therefore allow the appeal and I subscribe to the consequential orders as made in the judgment.

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft judgment of my learned brother, Frederick O. Oho, JCA just deliver and I entirely agree with this reasoning and conclusions in allowing the appeal for being meritorious. I abide by the consequential orders including the order as to costs.

Appearances

E.C. Oguelina, Esq.For Appellant

AND

There were no representations for the Respondents.For Respondent