AISHATU ALIYU v. ALH. ALIYU RUWA (2019)

AISHATU ALIYU v. ALH. ALIYU RUWA

(2019)LCN/13783(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 18th day of January, 2019

CA/S/10/2018

JUSTICES

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

AISHATU ALIYU Appellant(s)

AND

ALH. ALIYU RUWA Respondent(s)

WHETHER OR NOT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PARTY WHO ASSERTS THE AFFIRMATION OF AN ISSUE

This Appeal was tried by the lower Court on the parties? pleadings. Generally in civil cases, the ultimate burden of establishing a case is as disclosed in the pleadings. The burden is therefore on the person who will fail, if upon completion of pleadings no evidence is lead thereon on either side. In other words, the general or legal burden of proof is upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant who asserts the affirmative of the issue. See AJIBARE v. AKOMOLAFE (2012) 10 W.R.N. Page 62 at 96.

In an action for a declaration of land like the present, it is trite that even where there is nothing on the defence side that does not relieve the claimant of the burden of proof on him by the law. A Claimant must therefore succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence, save where the defence supports the Claimant?s case. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A CLAIMANT MUST PROVE ALL THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE, IN DISCHARGING THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND

The law is that it is imperative that in discharging the onus to prove the identity of the land in dispute, a claimant must prove all the boundaries of the land in dispute. This is because boundaries constitute an essential element in the identification of any piece of land and it follows that a party cannot establish the identity of a disputed land without pleading and giving evidence of its boundaries. Where he fails to prove one of the boundaries of the land in dispute, he would be held not to have discharged the onus on him. See MAFULUL & ORS. v. TAKWEN & ORS (2018) LPELR 45635 (CA), IMAH v. OKOGBE (1993) 9 NWLR (Part 316) 159 ONU v. AGU (1996) 5 NWLR (Part 451) 652. The failure of the Appellant and her witnesses to prove the boundaries of the land shows that she has failed to discharge the onus on her to prove the identity of the disputed land. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

CRITERIA AND ATTRIBUTES OF FAIR HEARING

Now, a fair trial of a case implies that every reasonable and fair minded observer, who watches the proceedings, should be able to come to the conclusion that the Court has been fair to all parties. See Kotoye V. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, wherein this Court set out certain basic criteria and attributes of fair hearing, as follows:
i) That the Court shall hear both sides not only in the case but also on all material issues in the case before reaching a decision, which may be prejudicial to any party in the case;
(ii) That the Court or Tribunal shall give equal treatment, opportunity, and consideration to all concerned;
(iii) That the proceedings shall be heard in public and all concerned shall have access to and to be informed of such a place of public hearing;
(iv) That having regard to all the circumstances, in every material decision in the case, justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to have been done. See SANI v. STATE (2017) LPELR ? 43475 SC.PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

FACTORS TO PROVE WHEN RELYING ON TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP TO A LAND

I will now approach the Record of Appeal in order to determine whether the Appellant was afforded a fair trial before the lower Court or not. At Pages 73 to 75 of the Records the lower Court Held:-It is trite that a party relying on traditional evidence must specifically plead and prove the followings before the Court: –
a) Who founded the land?
b) In what manner was the land founded?
c) The names and particulars of successive owners through whom he claims. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment of Kebbi State High Court in Suit No:- KB/YR/HC/2CV/2017 delivered on 25TH October, 2017. By a writ of summons, the Respondent as the Claimant before the lower Court, sued the Appellant claiming declaration of title to a piece of land lying and situate in Burukutu Village, Shanga Local Government Council of Kebbi State. Pleadings were exchanged, Pre-trial conference concluded and the Suit proceeded to full trial. At the end of the trial the lower Court delivered its Judgment in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed this Appeal by a Notice of Appeal filed on 24/11/17. The Record of Appeal transmitted on 18/01/18 was filed on 14/03/18 but deemed compiled and transmitted on 25/09/18. There are three grounds of Appeal filed.
GROUND ONE
?Upon a proper consideration of the parties? pleadings and evidence adduced before the lower Court, the Respondent did not proffer such evidence that will entitle him to a declaration of title of the land in dispute.
PARTICULARS
?a) Both parties filed pleadings and gave evidence in support

of their cases.
b) The Appellant pleaded and gave evidence to the effect that the disputed land belong to her father from whom she inherited it and her late father once leased it out to the respondent?s father and others.
c) The Respondent did not anywhere in the proceedings give any evidence in rebuttal of that material fact or pleading
d) The lower Court ought to have acted on that unchallenged and uncontroverted piece of evidence to dismiss the Respondent?s suit.
GROUND TWO
The Respondent did not present any direct, cogent and convincing evidence to discharge the burden of proof on him.
PARTICULARS
a) What the Respondent sought from the lower Court is a declaratory relief, declaration of title to the land in dispute.
b) The burden of proof is upon the Respondent to rely on his own case to succeed and not on the weakness of the defence.
c) The burden of proof placed on the Respondent can only be discharged upon convincing, cogent and direct evidence.
d) The evidence/case of the Respondent is full of imponderables making it unsafe to decree a declaration of title to the disputed land in his favour.

e) The trial Court denied the Appellant a fair trial when it failed, refused and neglected to consider her defence.
PARTICULARS
a) The Appellant filed a defence and gave evidence thereto.
b) The lower Court considered only the Appellant?s witnesses? testimonies as to the boundaries of the land while the identity of the land is not in issue.
c) Other material averments and evidence including the fact that the Appellant?s father once leased the land to the Respondent?s father Cirekota were not considered.
d) The lower Court ought to have put all the pieces of evidence on the imaginary scale and properly weigh them before coming to a decision.
e) The failure to consider the Appellant?s defence resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Two issues were nominated for determination of this Appeal by the Appellant which are:-
1) Whether from a careful study and proper consideration of the parties? pleadings and evidence before the lower Court, the respondent proved his case as required by law to be entitled to a declaration of title to the land in dispute (Distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of Appeal).

2) Whether upon a proper and dispassionate consideration of the Judgment of the lower Court it can be said the appellant was given a fair trial. (Distilled from ground 3 of the grounds of Appeal).

The Respondent adopted the same issues for determination formulated by the Appellant. To this end therefore the issues nominated by the Appellant shall for comprehensiveness be the basis for the determination of this Appeal. The Appellant?s Brief of argument filed on 14/03/2018 and deemed filed and served on 25/09/2018 was settled by E. C. OGUELINA ESQ., while the Respondent?s Brief of Argument filed on 12/04/2018 was settled by NURA SAHABI ESQ. At the hearing of the Appeal on the 23/10/2018, learned Counsel adopted their Briefs of Argument on behalf of their respective clients and urged the Court to decide the Appeal in their favour.

SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT?S COUNSEL
ISSUE ONE
Whether from a careful and proper consideration of the parties? pleadings and evidence before the lower Court, the Respondent proved his case as required by law to be entitled to a declaration of title to the land in dispute.

The submission of learned Counsel under this issue is that the case before the lower Court was tried on parties? pleadings. That a careful study of the Appellant?s statement of defence at Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 thereof, reflected at Pages 26 to 27 of the Record of Appeal, and the Respondent?s purported reply at Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 reflected at page 37 of the Record, shows that the Respondent was evasive and the general denial in paragraph one of the reply does not answer the specific issues raised by the Appellant in her statement of defence. He referred to Order 7 Rule 2 of the Kebbi State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2017, WEMA BANK PLC v. LINTON IND. T. NIG. LTD. (2011) 4 W. R. N. Page 47 to 54 Ratio 3, RE: AROWOLO (1993) 2 NWLR Part 275 Page 317 at 326 Paragraphs B-C and submitted that a general traverse by the Respondent without more does not raise any defence. That a reply is meant to answer issues raised by a defendant in his statement of defence. He referred to PROFESSOR N. O. ADENIJI & ANOR. v. PROFESSOR B.L.A. FETUGA (1990) 5 NWLR Part 150 Page 375 Paragraph A.

According to Counsel, the allegations of fact in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the statement of defence were new issues and the Respondent?s failure to specifically denied them amounts to admission. He urged the Court to so hold.
He said the Respondent at Paragraphs 8 and 10 of his statement of claim, refused, failed and neglected to name the so many people his late father leased the land to, for how many years they worked on it, when they eventually returned it, when his late father died, when he purportedly took over possession of the land and who are the witnesses.

He referred to OGWA NWEKE ONAH v. THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR Part 12 Page 236 at 237 Ratio 2. According to Counsel, the cross examination of the Appellant as DW1 at Page 50 of the Record afforded her the opportunity to clear issues as to how the Respondent?s father Cirekota once farmed on the land and built a hut on it. Learned Counsel further submitted that DW3 at Page 52 of the Record proved how the Appellant?s father leased out the land to the Respondent?s father. That the issue of the size and identity of the land by the lower Court did not arise at the lower Court because the parties know about it. He urged the Court to

resolve the first issue in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent.
?
ISSUE 2
Whether upon a proper and dispassionate consideration of the judgment of the lower Court it can be said the Appellant was given a fair trial.

The contention of counsel under this issue is that whereas the lower Court gave full consideration to all pieces of evidence led by the Respondent, it only referred to the testimonies of the Appellant and her witnesses in passing as reflected on Pages 75 and 76 of the Record. That the lower Court singled out and dwelt on the contradiction in the evidence of the boundaries of the disputed land as the Appellant?s witnesses testified. According to counsel both parties claimed title to the land in dispute through inheritance from their ancestors which is the traditional method of proof of title to land. He referred to CHIEF NWANKWO CHUKWU & ORS. v. EZEKIEL NNEJI & ORS. (1990) 6 NWLR Part 156 Page 363 at 367-368 Ratio 11, LASISI AKANNI BURAIMOH v. REBECCA AYINKE BAMGBOSE (1989) 3 NWLR Part 109 Page 352 at 354 and CHIEF L.C.A. OPEOLA & ORS v. S.O.P. FALADE & Ors (1991) 2 NWLR Part 173 Page 303 at 305 Ratio 5 and

and submitted that where questions of title arise in litigation, the Court is concerned only with the relative strength of title proved by the rival claimants.

He urged the Court to resolve the second issue in favour of the Appellant, allow the Appeal and grant their reliefs.
?
RESPONDENT?S SUBMISSION
ISSUE ONE
The Respondent formulated same issues for determination with the Appellant. On the first issue, learned Counsel submitted that this Appeal borders on declaration of title to land and the claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not to rely on the weakness of the defence. He referred to MATANMI v. DADA (2013) 2 S.C.N.J. Part 11) Page 616 at 622 Ratio 2. That the Respondent led credible and cogent evidence before the lower Court which delivered Judgment in his favour. He referred to Pages 46 ? 50 of the Record and submitted that the evidence led by the Respondent before the lower Court was never challenged or contradicted. That unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence should be acted upon. Counsel relied on AUGUSTINE OBINECHE & 1 OR. v. HUMPHREY & 1 OR.

(2010) 38 WRN Page 177 Ratio 11.

According to counsel, the Respondent at Page 37 of the Record specifically denied the new issues raised by the Appellant in her statement of defence, because the Respondent specified the number of paragraphs of the statement of defence he denied, and went further to state that neither the Respondent?s father nor her grandfather ever settled where the land in dispute is located. Counsel referred to HARRIS v. GAMBLE (1878) 7 Ch. 877 and LEWIS & PEAT LTD. v. AKHIMIEN (1976) 7 S.C. 157 and submitted that the Respondent denial to the Appellant?s statement of defence before the lower Court was not general traverse or evasive. That the findings of the lower Court flows from the evidence adduced before it.

SECOND ISSUE
Counsel?s contention is that the lower Court gave the Appellant fair trial as the lower Court evaluated the evidence before it, considered all the issues before it and arrived at a just decision. He further submitted that it is trite that where a trial Court evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraised the facts, an Appellate Court will not interfere with such findings.

According to him after the lower Court evaluated the evidence adduced before it, it came to the conclusion that the evidence of the Appellant was contradictory. He said the contradiction is also manifested at Paragraph 6 of the statement of defence which is at Page 26 of the Record. That the Appellant?s witnesses testified under cross examination that they were not present when the land was borrowed to CireKota but the Appellant neglected to call the people she mentioned at Paragraph 6 to come and testify. He referred to OGWA NWEKE ONAH v. THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR Part 12 Page 236 at 237 Ratio 2 and urged the Court to hold that the testimonies of those witnesses she refused to call would be against her. He urged the Court to resolve this issue against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent, dismiss the Appeal and affirm the decision of the lower Court.

DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
I will determine this Appeal based on the twin issues for determination formulated by the Appellant which the Respondent also adopted thus: –
1) Whether from a careful and proper consideration of the parties? pleadings and evidence before the lower Court, the

Respondent has proved his case as required by law to be entitled to a declaration of title to the land in dispute.
2) Whether upon a proper and dispassionate consideration of the judgment of the lower Court it can be said the Appellant was given a fair trial.

?At paragraph 3 of the statement of claim as reflected at Page 3 of the Record of Appeal it was stated thus:-

3) The claimant avers that his father CIREKOTA is the original owner of the piece of land lying and situate at Burkutu Village under Shanga Local Government, within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court.
4) The claimant avers that his father CIREKOTA, Jaye Yentala and one Yari Burkutu are the first settlers in Burukutu Village and each of them deforested a farmland.
5) The Claimant avers that his father worked on the land when it was a virgin land and also built a room on the land and he was the first settler of the land in dispute.
6) The claimant avers that his father worked on the land for so many years before his death and nobody ever claimed the ownership of that farm land.
7) The Claimant avers that after the death of his father, he inherited same and continues to work on the land in dispute.
9) The Claimant avers that about 8 years ago the defendant started claiming the ownership of the land by sending her people to work on the land in dispute.
11) The Claimant states that the farmland in dispute has the

following boundaries: –
a) West is bounded with River
b) East is bounded with farm of Sani Kokuwa/Garba Gebbe
c) South it is bounded with farm of Magomoko.
d) North it is bounded with Road (Hanyar Kaiwa) and farm of Jaye.

In proof of the pleadings as reproduced above, the Respondent led cogent and credible evidence as to the root of his title. See Pages 6 ? 19 of the Record of Appeal where the witnesses with precision identified the farmland in dispute with its boundaries. It is trite that a party seeking for a traditional title to land, who relies on traditional history as proof of title, must plead same sufficiently. That is to say; he must demonstrate in his pleading the original founder of the land; how he founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. Where a party has not given sufficient information in his pleadings as regards the origin or ownership of the land and the line of succession to himself, he has just laid foundation for the failure of his claim. See ANYAFULU & ORS v. MEKA & ORS (2014) LPELR ? 22336 SC and HYACINTH ANYANWU V. ROBERT ACHILIKE MBARA & ANOR (1992) 5 SCNJ 90.

In the instant case, it is clear that the Respondent from the printed records pleaded and led cogent evidence as to the root of his title. See paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim contained in page 3 of the records of appeal and paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Respondent?s Witness Deposition on Oath contained on Page 6 of the Records of Appeal.
I am unable to see where evidence of the Respondent?s witnesses was discredited during cross examination. See EYO v. ONUOHA (2011) 45 NSCQR (Part 1) 210 at 214. In fact PW2 the village head?s scribe of Kawara village stated in his evidence in chief which was not contradicted during cross examination contained at Pages 14-15 of the Record of Appeal that he took part in the negotiation when one Nakeceri went to him and said he saw the disputed farmland and one room at Burkutu and wanted to use it for a while. That the witness took him to the then village head of Kawara by name Abdullahi Sama?ila who invited the owner of the land by name Cirekota (the Respondent?s father).

That the Respondent?s father said he cannot give his farmland to Nakeceri because he does not know him

but agreed to give it to the village head who can borrow it to Nakeceri. That the witness, Nakeceri, Claimant?s father and the then village head agreed on that. That Nakeceri spent about 20 years on the land in dispute before he relocated to another village called DUKKU. This piece of evidence of PW2 is strong, cogent and compelling.

?The contention of the Respondent as contained at Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Statement of Defence reflected at Pages 26 ? 27 of the Record of Appeal is to the effect that: –
a) That the farmland in dispute belongs to the Appellant which she inherited from her late father Ubandawaki Asuba.
b) That the farmland was founded by her grandfather Umaru some 100 years ago
c) That Ubandawaki Asuba had at a time leased the disputed land to one Mamman Maiunguwa and the Respondent?s father Cirekota and they were given token of appreciation yearly.
d) That the Respondent?s father and Maiunguwa returned the farm after 7 years with some farm produce in the presence of witnesses.
e) That since after the return of the farm it has remained in the possession of her father till his death about 40 years ago

when she took over possession thereof.

?The Appellant called three witnesses before the lower Court. Their evidence in chief and cross examination is contained at Pages 50 ? 53 of the Record of Appeal. This Court observed that it is pleaded at Paragraph 6 of the Appellant?s Statement of Defence contained on Pages 26 ? 27 of the Record of Appeal that the Respondent?s father (Cirekota) and Maiunguwa worked on the disputed farmland for 7 years before they returned it to Ubandawaki (the Appellant?s father).
However DW2 who maintained the same position at Pages 31-32 of the Records during examination in Chief, contradicted himself during cross examination when he said Cirekota worked on the farm for 40 years before he handed it over to Ubandawaki.

Furthermore DW2 and DW3 at Pages 52 and 53 stated during cross examination that they were not there when the Appellant?s father borrowed the disputed land to the Respondent?s father, however at Pages 29 ? 30 of the Record of Appeal DW1 the Appellant testified in chief before the lower Court that when the Respondent’s father and one

Maiunguwa returned the disputed farmland to her father, it was done in the presence of witnesses among whom were Mahera, Koko, Nayero, Kwakute etc. She however failed to call them as witnesses or tell the lower Court about their whereabout. The law is trite that where a party to a case failed, refused or neglected to call a vital witness whose evidence may help the Court to decide the case one way or the other, it will be presumed that the evidence of that witness would have been unfavourable to that person who refused to call him. See OGWA NWEKE ONAH v. THE STATE (Supra) at Page 237 Ratio 2.

At pages 51 and 52 of the Records during cross examination DW1, 2 and 3 gave different and contradictory boundaries descriptions of the farmland in dispute.

Where he fails to prove one of the boundaries of the land in dispute, he would be held not to have discharged the onus on him. See MAFULUL & ORS. v. TAKWEN & ORS (2018) LPELR 45635 (CA), IMAH v. OKOGBE (1993) 9 NWLR (Part 316) 159 ONU v. AGU (1996) 5 NWLR (Part 451) 652. The failure of the Appellant and her witnesses to prove the boundaries of the land shows that she has failed to discharge the onus on her to prove the identity of the disputed land.
The first issue is therefore resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.

As regards the second issue for determination, whether upon a proper and dispassionate consideration of the judgment of the lower Court it can be said the Appellant was given a fair trial.

but also on all material issues in the case before reaching a decision, which may be prejudicial to any party in the case;
(ii) That the Court or Tribunal shall give equal treatment, opportunity, and consideration to all concerned;
(iii) That the proceedings shall be heard in public and all concerned shall have access to and to be informed of such a place of public hearing;
(iv) That having regard to all the circumstances, in every material decision in the case, justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to have been done. See SANI v. STATE (2017) LPELR ? 43475 SC. I will now approach the Record of Appeal in order to determine whether the Appellant was afforded a fair trial before the lower Court or not. At Pages 73 to 75 of the Records the lower Court Held:-
?It is trite that a party relying on traditional evidence must specifically plead and prove the followings before the Court: –
a) Who founded the land?
b) In what manner was the land founded?
c) The names and particulars of successive owners through whom he claims.
In paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 the claimant claims

that his father Cirekota was the original owner of the farm situate at Burkutu Village with boundaries on the West with river, East with the farm of Sani Kokuwa/Garba Gebbe, South with farm of Mogomoko and North with a road and farm of Jaye.it is in evidence as per the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 that Cirekota the father of the Claimant settled on the land and deforested it, farmed on it for many years, and used to borrow it to some people to farm particularly Nakaceri before it was inherited by the Claimant. PW2 the scribe of Kawara village head, said he took part in the negotiation when the farm was borrowed to Nakaceri by the village head with the consent of Cirekota.
Furthermore, PW3 and PW4 said they shared boundaries with the farmland being claimed by the claimant, and they only know the father of the Claimant on the land. He deforested it along with their parents having their own separate farms. I am therefore satisfied that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded and proved how the land in dispute was originally acquired by his father through deforestation as a

virgin land and how he subsequently inherited it. The traditional evidence conclusively proved the claim of the Claimant over the land in dispute.
Learned Counsel for the defendant in his written address argued that the evidence adduced by the Claimant fell short of the requirements of the law as there were no sufficient particulars as regards to when the land was allegedly deforested by the Claimant?s father and when the Claimant precisely took over the land from his father…?

?The lower Court cited Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim and concluded that: -?Furthermore, when DW1, DW2 and DW3 testified, particularly during cross examination, they stated different boundaries of the land from those stated by the Claimant. For example, DW1 when asked about the boundaries of the land in dispute she stated that East it is bordered by the farm of one Yari Burkutu, West by the farm of one Mahera South by the farm of one Masu Auta while she forgot the person whose farm is in the North. DW2 on the same issue said the land is bordered from the East by Yari Burkuru, from the West by Mabera, from the South by Ubandawaki Asaba father of the defendant

and forgot the person on the North.
DW3 on the same issue said the land is bordered East by Mahera and Kibiya West by Yari Burkutu, the South by Mahera and North by a river. In the circumstances, it will be seen that the Claimant?s case remain proved with credible and cogent evidence not contradicted whatsoever. The Claimant sufficiently pleaded and proved how the land in dispute was acquired originally through deforestation as a virgin land and how he inherited it from his father. I therefore find merit in the Claimant?s case and grant reliefs 1, 2, and 3 as follows: –
1) I declare that the Claimant is the owner of the land in dispute situated at Burkutu village in Shanga Local Government Area which is bordered East with the farm of Sani Kokuwa/Garba Gebbe, West by a river, South by the farm of Magomako and North by the farm of Jaye and Road (Hanyar Kaiwa)
2) I declare that the continuous stay or entering on the land by the defendant amount to trespass.
3) The defendant either my herself, agents, servants, workmen, privies or assigns are perpetually restrained from further interfering with the Claimants’ ownership of the land

described in order 1 above. Judgment is accordingly entered for the Claimant.?

?After a thorough appraisal of the Judgment of the lower Court as reproduced above, the lower Court dealt with all the averments in the Pleadings before it in respect of which cogent evidence was led. Both parties were therefore accorded fair trial. The second issue is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. I find no reason whatsoever that will warrant interfering with the findings of the lower Court. This Appeal is lacking in merit. It is accordingly dismissed. I affirm the Judgment of the trial Court.

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A.: I was privileged to preview the judgment just rendered by my learned brother Bayero, JCA. I fully agree with the reasons therein and the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal. It cannot but be outrightly dismissed.
I subscribe to the consequential orders made in the judgment.

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the Judgment of my learned Brother ABDULLAHI M. BAYERO, JCA just delivered and I am in agreement with his reasoning and

conclusions in disallowing the Appeal. I am also in agreement that the Appeal is lacking in merit and therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed for want of substance. I abide by the consequential orders made by Court.

Appearances:

E. C. Oguelina Esq.For Appellant(s)

Nura Sahabi Esq.For Respondent(s)

Appearances

E. C. Oguelina Esq.For Appellant

AND

Nura Sahabi Esq.For Respondent

LawCare Nigeria

AISHATU ALIYU v. ALH. ALIYU RUWA (2019)

general

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

SCHOOL OF MINES AND GEOLOGICAL STUDIES (ESTABLISHMENT) ACT, 2022

RAW MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ACT, 2022

PROCEEDS OF CRIME (RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT) ACT 2022

PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION ACT, 2021

general

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED