AKUWUJI & ORS v. ONYIMADU & ANOR
(2022)LCN/16170(CA)
In the Court Of Appeal
(OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, April 07, 2022
CA/PH/232/1999
Before Our Lordships:
Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ibrahim Wakili Jauro Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. CHIEF CLETUS AKUWUJI 2. NZE PAULINUS ENYENWA 3. KALU OGBONNAYA AGWU (For Themselves And As Representing The Members Of Umuezike Village Of Awo-Omama In Oru East L.G.A) APPELANT(S)
And
1. EMMANUEL ONYIMADU 2. ALEXIUS EZEIHUAKU (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Umumbachi Family Of Mgbidi) RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) defines Public Documents as:
(a) Documents forming the official acts or records of the official acts of–
(i) The sovereign authority,
(ii) Official bodies and Tribunals, or
(iii) Public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere; and
(b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private documents.
103. All documents other than public documents are private documents.” PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TRIAL COURT
It is the primary responsibility of the trial Court, who saw and heard the witnesses to evaluate the evidence proffered and make the appropriate findings therefrom. This is based on the fact that only the trial Court has the advantage of seeing the witnesses, assessing their demeanor while testifying. In the absence of strong reasons, an appeal Court will be slow to interfere with such findings. See Statoil (Nig) Ltd v Inducon (Nig) Ltd (2021) 7 NWLR Part 1774 Page 1 at 55-56 Para H-A per M.D. Muhammad JSC; Obi v Uzoewulu (2021) 8 NWLR Part 1778 Page 352 at 373 Para G-H per Aboki JSC; All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) v. Al-Makura (2016) 5 NWLR Part 1505 Page 316 at 348 Para E-F. PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE IDENTIFY OF THE LAND IS PARAMOUNT IN LAND MATTERS
In land matters, it is trite that the identity of the land is paramount.
Where a Court finds in the course of trial, that there is conflicting evidence and visiting the locus in quo would put to rest this conflict, then it becomes imperative and indeed behoves on the trial Court, if it finds it necessary, to visit the locus in quo, in order to resolve the apparent conflict.
It is entirely a discretionary move, but it is geared towards the proper determination of the question in dispute.
The invitation to visit a locus in quo must not necessarily be at the instance of the parties. The Court can in the exercise of its discretion order same. After the visit, evidence of what took place at the locus in quo is given in Court, and failure to do same does not vitiate the proceedings. Suffice that the trial Court took notes of its observance at the locus in quo, and the parties are ably represented. PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Imo State High Court, sitting at Oguta (hereafter referred to synonymously as “the Lower Court”/”trial Court”), delivered on the 25th day of October 1995 by D.E. Njiribeako J, in Consolidated Suits Nos. HOG/38/1984 and HOG/61/1984, whereby he entered judgment for the Plaintiffs in Suit No. HOG/38/84 (Respondents herein) and dismissed the Defendant’s claim in HOG/61/1984 (Appellants’ herein) for title and trespass. Aggrieved, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 5/01/96, subsequently amended by leave of the Court and filed on 20/04/2017.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The initial parties to this suit, suing in representative capacities, were substituted on their decease, by members of their respective families.
The suit was commenced by the institution of Suit No: HOG/38/1984 by the Respondents, as Plaintiffs, claiming damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction restraining the Appellants from further trespass to the land of the Respondents called “Oburu Aja” situate at Umumbachi Eziele Mgbidi. The Appellants followed this up by the institution of Suit No: HOG/61/1984 seeking for a declaration of title, damages and a perpetual injunction against the Respondents. Both suits were consolidated and commenced de novo before the lower Court. The Respondents called 5 witnesses and tendered four exhibits, while the Appellants called 6 witnesses and tendered two exhibits. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge visited the locus in quo and subsequently delivered his judgment, in favour of the Respondents.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Appellants’ Brief of Arguments was filed on 20/04/2017 and settled by Obinna John-Agbasi, Esq wherein the Appellants distilled six (6) issues for the Court’s determination, to wit:
1. Whether the learned trial judge properly and fully evaluated all the evidence placed before him in the consolidated suits.
2. Whether the learned trial judge complied with the second proviso to Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1990 during his inspection of the locus in quo; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the non-compliance led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
3. Whether Exhibit C was admissible in evidence; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the inclusion of Exhibit C in evidence occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
4. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Appellants were bound by the judgment contained in Exhibit A after finding that the Appellants were not parties to that case.
5. Did the Respondents prove the identity of the land in dispute over which they claimed injunction against the Appellants?
6. Whether as between the Respondents and Appellants title to and was not in dispute; and who as between the parties proved a better title to the land in dispute.
The Respondents’ Brief of Arguments settled by F. U Unyimadu Esq., was filed on 14/01/2019 but deemed as properly filed on 9/3/2022. The Respondents adopted the issues for determination formulated by the Appellants.
I shall adopt the 2nd, 3rd, 4th issues, slightly modified for succinctness and add a 4th issue, in the determination of this suit, as follows:
1. Whether the learned trial judge complied with Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1990 during his inspection of the locus in quo; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the non-compliance led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether Exhibit C was admissible in evidence; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the inclusion of Exhibit C in evidence occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Appellants were bound by the judgment contained in Exhibit A after finding that the Appellants were not parties to that case.
4. Whether the lower Court rightly evaluated the evidence and was right to enter judgment in favor of the Respondents.
The 1st issue for determination is:
Whether the learned trial judge complied with Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1990 during his inspection of the locus in quo; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the non-compliance led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:
Counsel submitted that there are two alternative procedures to be followed with regard to a visit to the locus in quo as provided for by Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1990 but that the trial judge adopted a different procedure in the visit to the locus in quo and one that was fundamentally flawed, as he drew his conclusions from his personal observations and from statements not on oath, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants. He cited the cases of Osolu v. Osolu (1998) 1 NWLR (Part 535) Page 532 at 556 Para A-B; Awoyegbe v. Ogbeide (1988) 1 NWLR (Part 75) 695.
RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS
Learned Respondents’ Counsel submitted that the procedure adopted by the trial judge during the visit to the locus in quo met squarely the requirements of Section 77 (d)(ii) of the Evidence Act, 1990. The visit to the locus in quo was necessitated by the need for the trial judge to ascertain that the parties were on the same page with respect to the location of the land in dispute and that while at the locus, the trial judge put questions to the PW1, DW1 and DW3 who had previously testified before the trial judge and were still on oath.
He concluded that assuming, without conceding, that the procedure adopted by the trial judge was not in compliance with the Act, what matters is whether substantial justice had been done, as the apex Court had directed that substantial justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities. He cited the case of Famfa Oil Ltd. v. AG of the Federation (2003) 9-10 NSCR Page 29.
RESOLUTION
From the records of the Court, at Page 91 the Court stated:
“The Court will now proceed to a visit of the locus. During the address of Defendant’s Counsel, an impression was created that the land for which the Plaintiff sued is totally different from the land Defendant’s say is in dispute. The Plaintiff relies on a plan used for previous suits. Court will now move to the locus.”
The Court in its judgment, at Page 111, described the inspection as a “most useful exercise” and that “they traversed a very sizeable area of the land going along the boundaries and sometimes into the land”. The area in the Respondent’s plan was identified on the land and so also the boundaries. The witnesses identified their various holdings and areas occupied by them. The Court also noted observations made by him and the questions asked with respect to the evidence given by the witnesses in Court. He noted that “Counsel had no questions”.
The question is whether the Court complied with Section 77 of the Evidence Act with respect to the visit to the locus.
A number of interpretations have been given to the procedure to be adopted by a Judge on a visit to the locus. It is thus necessary to construct the statute itself.
Section 77 of the Evidence Act 1990, which was the statute in force at the time the action was filed, provides as follows:
(ii) If oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection, or may inspect or may order or permit a jury to inspect any movable or immovable property, the inspection of which may be material to the proper determination of the question in dispute and in the case of such inspection being ordered or permitted, the Court shall either be adjourned to the place where the subject matter of the said inspection may be and the proceedings shall continue at that place until the Court further adjourns back to its original place of sitting or to some other place of sitting, or the Court shall attend and make an inspection of the subject matter only, evidence, if any, of what transpired there being given in Court afterwards; in either case the accused, if any, shall be present.”
It was held by the Supreme Court, per Nweze JSC in the case of Abdullahi v Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR Part 1711 Page 338 at 359-360 Para E-E:
“Such a visit is a matter for the discretion of the Judge if he is of the opinion that he will get a better grasp of the evidence that has been adduced before him. … In other words, it is clearly at the discretion of the trial Judge to determine whether in the light of the evidence before him, there is need to resolve by a visit to the locus in quo, the conflict of evidence or clear a doubt as to the accuracy of a piece of evidence when there is such conflict of evidence, circumstances that could warrant such a visit include the following: where there is a conflict of evidence as to the existence or otherwise of something material to the case and such a visit would resolve the conflict in evidence or would clear a doubt as to the accuracy of any piece of evidence on the subject.”
Indeed, the preface to Section 77 of the Evidence Act Supra that “If oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit”, makes it clear that a visit to the locus in quo is at the discretion of the judge if he feels that it is necessary for the proper determination of the question in dispute.
It is thus not a necessity, as submitted by the Appellants’ Counsel, that it be at the instance of the parties, I hold.
Learned Appellants’ Counsel has said that the witnesses should have been sworn. I will agree with this contention, if the witnesses were fresh witnesses who had not given evidence prior, however where they have previously been sworn, there would be no necessity, I hold, for a fresh oath to be administered.
Learned Counsel has also argued that there was a necessity for the trial Judge, in the latter option, to have read out his notes at the inspection in the open Court to enable the parties or their Counsel call witnesses or cross-examine them in relation to the inspection. The lower Court obviously adopted the 2nd option of making an inspection. The question is whether following evidence of what transpired, he should have read out his note in Court to enable Counsel to cross-examine the witnesses relative to the inspection.
What the law requires is that following the inspection, evidence of what transpired be given in Court afterwards. There is no mention of whether the same should be for the purposes or otherwise of cross-examination. Should the absence of stating in Court what transpired at the locus invalidate the observations made by the trial Court in its judgment?
I think not. This is because the trial Judge stated in his judgment, with respect to what transpired at the locus:
“Counsel had no questions. We had seen enough to point clearly to the following truths….”
His non-compliance did not therefore lead to a miscarriage of justice, I hold. I accordingly resolve this issue against the Appellant.
The 2nd issue for determination, is:
Whether Exhibit C was admissible in evidence; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the inclusion of Exhibit C in evidence occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
It is the submission of learned Counsel to the Appellants that Exhibit C, having been tendered in two cases prior, forms part of the records of the Court and is therefore a public document by virtue of Section 109 (a) (iii) of the Evidence Act in which only a certified true copy thereof can be tendered in evidence. As Exhibit C is not certified, the trial judge acted wrongly by admitting it in evidence and relying on the same. The mere fact that the Appellant’s Counsel consented to its admission does not cure it of its fundamental defect. The trial Court should thus have expunged this document and having relied on it, rendered the judgment liable to be set aside.
RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS
The Respondents’ Counsel pointed out that Exhibit C is a Survey Plan showing the land in dispute, which was tendered in a previous case. It is a private document which needs no certification. From Paragraph 3 of the pleadings of the Respondent in its Amended Statement of Claim, it is clear that what was pleaded was the Survey Plan Exhibit C and not the Exhibit admitted and marked in a previous proceeding. Furthermore, the Appellants having failed to object to its admissibility at the trial Court are precluded from doing so at this point, citing the cases of Owena Bank (Nig) Plc v. Punjab National Bank (2000) 5 NWLR (Part 658) Page 635; Muhammed v. Mustapha (1993) 5 NWLR (Part 292) Page 222.
RESOLUTION
Exhibit C is a Survey Plan tendered by the Respondent at the lower Court. As submitted by the Respondents’ Counsel, this document was pleaded in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim at Page 23 of the Record, as follows:
“the land in dispute …is more particularly shown in Plaintiffs’ plan No. EC51/53 dated 20th May, 1953 tendered by the Plaintiffs’ ancestor in Onitsha High Court, Suits Nos O/22/54 and O/77/52 filed with this Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff will at the hearing rely on the said plan and judgment…”
It appears that the Appellants’ Counsel is under a misconception that because the Survey Plan had been tendered before in Court proceedings, it thereby becomes a public document. Unless it can be shown that the Survey Plan tendered in Suit Nos. 0/77/52 and 0/22/54 remained in the custody of those Courts, in proceedings of about 40 years prior, which is most unlikely, and that Exhibit “C” emanated from the Court’s custody, it cannot be classed as a public document, I hold.
Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) defines Public Documents as:
(a) Documents forming the official acts or records of the official acts of–
(i) The sovereign authority,
(ii) Official bodies and Tribunals, or
(iii) Public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere; and
(b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private documents.
103. All documents other than public documents are private documents.”
A Survey Plan drawn by a Surveyor does not come under any of the categories stipulated in Section 102, I hold, and is accordingly a private document as contemplated by Section 103 Supra, thereby requiring no certification, I hold. In consequence, Exhibit C was admissible and was rightly admitted by the lower Court. I again resolve this issue against the Appellants.
I shall take the 3rd and 4th issues together, to wit:
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Appellants were bound by the judgment contained in Exhibit A after finding that the Appellants were not parties to that case.
4. Whether the lower Court rightly evaluated the evidence and was right to enter judgment in favor of the Respondents.
APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
Counsel contended that the 1953 judgment of the District Officer (Exhibit A) was not tied to any survey plan, therefore the Respondents had the onus of proving that the land won in the 1953 judgment is the same as in the present action but that they failed to discharge this onus. In addition, that the trial judge was wrong to hold that the Appellants were bound by this judgment, in spite of finding that the Appellants were not parties to the said case. The doctrine of standing-by cannot thus be applicable in this case, as the appellants were never aware of the case. It is also a judgment in personam and cannot be binding on the Appellants who were not parties to the suit or privies to the parties. He cited the case of Oke & Anor v. Atoloye & Ors (1986) 1 SC 422 at 452 – 453 per Oputa JSC.
He complained that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence placed before him and to ascribe the right probative value to it. He contended that the trial judge placed much weight on the statements that were made during his visit to the locus in quo which were not on oath and on the evidence of the Respondents which were riddled with inconsistencies and as a result, the verdict he reached was against the weight of evidence. The onus was on the Respondents to prove the identity of the land in dispute which they failed to do and failed to clearly show the boundaries of the land in dispute, neither was the portion(s) trespassed upon shown. Where adverse parties to a suit are claiming trespass to land and perpetual injunction, as in the instant case, title is said to be in issue. The Respondents failed to prove their title to the land unlike the Appellants who did same by traditional history.
RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS
Learned Counsel, submitting that civil cases are decided on a balance of probabilities, contended that from the evidence before the Court, it is clear that the case of the Respondents was found to obviously outweigh that of the Appellants. He stated that the judgment of the trial Court qualifies as a “good judgment”. It is clear from the evidence that the Appellants were caught by the doctrine of estoppel by standing-by.
Counsel also submitted that the argument by the Appellants that the judgment, Exhibit A, was not tied to any survey plan is not covered by any ground of appeal or any issue for determination and ought to be discountenanced. The Respondents proved the identity of the land by tendering Exhibit C which exhibit was amply verified by the learned trial judge during his visit to the locus in quo and by the evidence given by the boundary neighbours. There was thus no need for the trial Court to put title in issue between the parties when the Respondents had already obtained title to the land in dispute in 1953 through a valid judgment of a Court. The Court having found as a fact that the Respondent got title through Exhibit A and that the Appellants were bound by that judgment only had to give effect to the said judgment.
RESOLUTION
The lower Court, in coming to its decision, set out the evidence of the witnesses of both parties, including their cross examination. While reviewing the evidence, the trial Judge found the statement of DW1 under examination in chief as “very strange” that “when we took our Surveyor to the land we did not show him the plan which the Plaintiffs served on us”, wondering why they “decided to tuck away such vital document from their surveyor and their Counsel acquiesced in what they did”.
Referring to his order for consolidation, he said the order was made on the premise, as agreed by both parties, that the subject matter of the two suits is the same land, only for the Appellants’ Counsel to make “a U turn” at the conclusion of the case that the Respondents were claiming a different land as that which they won in 1952, rendering necessary a visit to the locus, which visit he described as a “most useful exercise”.
Giving his findings from the visit, he stated:
“Counsel had no questions. We had seen enough to point clearly to the following truths:
1. The land in dispute is partly inhabited and a vast of portion of farm land. Families of Umuamobi live in parts of the land as plaintiffs said.
2. There is no single person from Umuezike who live on the land.
3. DW3 Pius Ihemeukaesu lied to Court that he lives in the land
4. DW5 Chief Anthony Ekegha the village head of Umuezike lied to the Court that he once lived in the land and that persons from his village live there.
5. PW2 Onyejawa Igbojimadu of Umuabiahu, PW3 Christopher Emeto and PW4 Chief Okwuobasi Onwuanaegbule Igwegbe are indeed boundary neighbours and spoke the truth.
6. The land shown in Exhibit C Plantiff’s plan is indeed the land in dispute.
The Defendants deliberately hid the plan Exhibit C from their surveyor to make it impossible for him to plot it into their plan to confirm that the land was disputed before.
7. The Defendants’ plan Exhibit E showed a larger area than Plaintiffs’ land Exhibit C. Plaintiffs’ land shown in Exhibit C does not at all show that Plaintiffs and Umuezuike people are boundary neighbours. They are not.
He concluded from his findings that:
“My impression after the inspection was that the Defendants deliberately misled the Court. DW1 and witnesses lied. The land we inspected which is the land in dispute is the land of Mgbidi people and claim that it is the heart of Umuezike land is false.”
He accepted the evidence, from the landmarks, that the land in dispute was that adjudicated upon in the Respondents’ favour “as far as 1953”. Agreeing that the Appellants were not parties to that judgment, the trial judge held the position of the law to be clear, as follows that:
“If indeed the Defendants claim the land and stood by and watched a contest over it by others and they did not join to register their interest and protect it or defend it following an adverse claim by other persons then they cannot escape the judgment. They are bound by it.”
He concluded:
“I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs have discharged the burden of proof which lies on them…I am satisfied that they are the owners in possession of the land in dispute and are entitled to succeed in their Suit No. HOG/38/84. By virtue of my finding, the Plaintiffs in Suit No. HOG/81/84 over same land cannot succeed and the suit is hereby dismissed.”
He awarded damages against the Appellants for trespass into the Respondents’ land as shown in Exhibit C and granted an order of perpetual injunction against the Appellants.
As submitted by the Appellants’ Counsel, where two parties claim ownership of a piece of land, judgment is given in favour of the person who can show better title. See Abdullahi v Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR Part 1711 Page 338 at 358 Para B-C per Nweze JSC; Iseru v. Catholic Bishop Warri Diocese (1997) 3 NWLR Part 495 Page 517 at 526 Para E per Iguh JSC; Biariko v. Edeh-Ogwuile (2001) 12 NWLR Part 726 Page 235 at 262-263 Para H-B per Onu JSC; Thompson v. Arowolo (2003) 7 NWLR Part 818 Page 163 at 208 Para B per Ejiwunmi JSC.
In the instant case, the observation of the trial Judge at the locus in quo reflects the absence of the Appellants on the land being contested, contrary to their pleadings and evidence. The Court also found that the Survey Plan tendered, showing the land claimed by the Respondents, was the same Survey Plan used in the successful adjudication in their favour in Suits Nos 0/22/54 and 0/77/52 many decades ago.
As submitted by both Counsel, in arriving at a decision, a Court must put the evidence of the witnesses on an imaginary scale, in order to determine on which side the evidence preponderates See Uwah v. Akpabio (2014) 7 NWLR Part 1407 Page 472 at 489 Para B- D per M.D Muhammad JSC; Chiadi v Aggo (2018) 2 NWLR Part 1603 Page 175 at 211 at 222 Para H per Aka’ahs JSC.
In the instant case, placing all the evidence of both parties on an imaginary scale, the balance of probabilities is weighted in favour of the Respondents, I hold.
It is the primary responsibility of the trial Court, who saw and heard the witnesses to evaluate the evidence proffered and make the appropriate findings therefrom. This is based on the fact that only the trial Court has the advantage of seeing the witnesses, assessing their demeanor while testifying. In the absence of strong reasons, an appeal Court will be slow to interfere with such findings. See Statoil (Nig) Ltd v Inducon (Nig) Ltd (2021) 7 NWLR Part 1774 Page 1 at 55-56 Para H-A per M.D. Muhammad JSC; Obi v Uzoewulu (2021) 8 NWLR Part 1778 Page 352 at 373 Para G-H per Aboki JSC; All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) v. Al-Makura (2016) 5 NWLR Part 1505 Page 316 at 348 Para E-F.
I see no reason to interfere with the findings and decision of the Court and accordingly resolve both issues 3 and 4 against the Appellants.
Having resolved all the issues against the Appellants, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court in favour of the Respondent in HOG/38/84 and the dismissal by the lower Court of the suit filed by the Appellants in HOG61/84 is accordingly affirmed.
The Appellants shall pay costs of N100,000 to the Respondents.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading before now, the lead judgment just delivered by my brother, OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusions.
Howbeit, I shall comment regarding the issue of whether the learned trial judge complied with Section 77 of the Evidence Act 1990, during his inspection of the locus in quo, and if the answer is in the negative, whether the non-compliance led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
In land matters, it is trite that the identity of the land is paramount.
Where a Court finds in the course of trial, that there is conflicting evidence and visiting the locus in quo would put to rest this conflict, then it becomes imperative and indeed behoves on the trial Court, if it finds it necessary, to visit the locus in quo, in order to resolve the apparent conflict.
It is entirely a discretionary move, but it is geared towards the proper determination of the question in dispute.
The invitation to visit a locus in quo must not necessarily be at the instance of the parties. The Court can in the exercise of its discretion order same. After the visit, evidence of what took place at the locus in quo is given in Court, and failure to do same does not vitiate the proceedings. Suffice that the trial Court took notes of its observance at the locus in quo, and the parties are ably represented.
The appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the Imo State High Court, sitting in Oguta, delivered on the 25th of October, 1995 in consolidated Suit Nos: HOG/38/1984 and HOG/61/1984 is hereby affirmed.
I abide by the consequential order made as to costs.
IBRAHIM WAKILI JAURO, J.C.A.: His Lordship Adefope-Okojie, JCA, had availed me with the draft of the judgment just delivered and I fully subscribe to the reasoning and conclusions reached therein. I too hold that the appeal lacks merit and must be dismissed. I hereby dismiss same. I abide by the order as to costs.
Appearances:
Obinna John-Agbasi For Appellant(s)
F.U. Unyimadu For Respondent(s)
