LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

ALERU & ANOR v. WORLU & ORS (2022)

ALERU & ANOR v. WORLU & ORS

(2022)LCN/16181(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022

CA/PH/492/2015

Before Our Lordships:

Tani Yusuf Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal

Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Olabode Abimbola Adegbehingbe Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. HENRY ALERU 2. JOSEPH ALERU (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Late Richard Aleru Family Of Elikpo-Odu Rukpokwu In Obio/Akpor Local Government Area Of Rivers State) APPELANT(S)

And

1. OKECHUKWU WORLU 2. ABPOH WORLU 3. CHIMENE WORLU (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Late Theophilus Worlu Family Of Eliokpo-Odu Rukpokwu In Obio/Akpor Local Government Area Of Rivers State) RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW ON CALLING OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE BY DIFFERENT NAMES BY THE PARTIES

Both the appellants and the respondents are ad-idem on the location of the lands at Eliokpokwodu Rukpokwu. Although the defendants/respondents in paragraph 3(iii) of the joint statement of defence and counter-claim stated that the appellants erroneously call the land “Eli Iziegburu, it is settled law that if a party to a land in dispute calls the land in dispute by a particular name which is at variance with the name given to it by the adversary and his witnesses will not by any stretch of imagination given rise to any question or issue of identity so long as the parties and their witnesses are making reference to one and the same piece of land. See Onwumelu Vs Duru (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 525) 377, Tsemudiara Vs Messrs FG Spiropoulos & Co. Ltd (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 84 and RRCC (Nig.) Ltd Vs Alhassan (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1729) 233 at 340.
The calling of the land in dispute by different names by the parties is of no consequence once the defendant admits knowing the land over which the claimant has instituted an action and the identity of the land in dispute is not in doubt. See Edjekpo Vs Osia (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553 and Akinyemi Vs Ojo (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 188.
PER HASSAN, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A PLAINTIFF MUST SUCCEED ON THE STRENGHT OF HIS CASE IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

In an action for declaration of title, while it is the plaintiff that must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence, the plaintiff is entitled to rely on aspects of the defendant’s case which tends to support his case. See C.D.C (Nig.) Ltd Vs SCOA (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) 300, Chukwueke Vs Okoronkwo (1999)1 NWLR (Pt. 587) 410, Pada Vs Galadima (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 436 and Hanatu Vs Amadi (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1728) 115. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.

TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellants as claimants in the High Court, of Rivers State, Port Harcourt commenced an action by way of Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 4th July, 2011 and filed on the 5th July, 2011. The suit was commenced in a representative capacity against the respondents as defendants therein also in a representative capacity, claiming as follows:
1. A declaration that the claimants have customary right of occupancy over the piece or parcel of land known as and called Ohia-Azu-Okemini and also over the parcel of land known as and called Ohia Iziegburu, both lying and situate at Rukpokwu in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State.
2. N500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand naira) being special damages accruable by cutting down of 9 palm trees and 25 Plantain stems planted by claimants and wall fence of 300 concrete blocks constructed by claimants on the said land “Ohia-Iziegburu” land.
3. N500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand naira) being general damages for trespass committed by the Defendants on claimants both said land known and called “Ohia-Azu-Okemini and “Ohia-Izegburu.”
4. Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies or otherwise however entering the said right side portion of “Ohia-Azu-Okemini” and left side portion of “Ohia Iziegburu” land or even interfering with the claims in their possession, occupation, use and enjoyment.
5. Such further or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

The defendants in response to the claim filed a statement of defence and counter-claim dated 21st October, 2011, claiming jointly and severally against the claimants as follows:
i. A declaration that the parcel of land in dispute measuring 500ft X 115 fit at Eli Iziegburu intervening between the claimants’ piece of land the stream called Mini Izo Womgbata including the said stream belong to the defendants.
ii. A declaration that the parcel of land at Eli Azu Okemini belongs to the defendants.
iii. The sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only being damages for trespass committed by the claimants against the defendants.
iv. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimants, their servants, agents, privies or otherwise howsoever from trespassing into, or interfering with the rights of the defendants in respect of the said parcels of land both at Eli Azu Okemini and Eli Iziegburu Elikpokwodu Rukpokwu respectively.

The claimants filed a reply and defence to counter-claim on the 10th of November, 2011.

After the exchange of processes, trial commenced. The claimants/applicants called two witnesses in proof of their case and tendered exhibits, while the defendants/respondents also called two witnesses and tendered exhibits. At the conclusion of trial, the claimants/appellants’ case was dismissed.

Aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellants appealed to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal dated the 10th day of December, 2013 which was subsequently amended with leave of the Court.

The Amended Notice of Appeal was dated and filed on the 12th of April, 2016 but deemed properly filed on 22nd of March, 2017. It is anchored on eight grounds of appeal with their particulars and reliefs sought.

The Appellants brief dated 2nd November, 2017 was filed on the 3rd of November, 2017 but deemed properly filed and served on the 12th of January, 2022. Two issues were distilled therein for determination as follows:
i. “Whether the learned trial Judge was right when His Lordship held that the identity of the land in dispute is uncertain?” (Grounds 1,2,3 and 4).
ii. “Whether the learned trial Judge was right when His Lordship entered judgment in part on the counter-claim.” (Grounds 5,6,7 and 8).

Learned counsel for the appellants adopted the brief and urged the Court to allow the appeal.

The Respondents’ brief dated and filed on the 17th of September, 2018 was deemed properly filed and served on the 12th of January, 2022. In it two issues were formulated thus:
1. “Whether from the facts and evidence before the trial Court, the appellants proved their case to be entitled to the judgment of the trial Court.” (Grounds 1,2,3 and 4).
2. “Whether on a preponderance of evidence before the trial Court, the respondents proved their counter-claim as to be entitled to the judgment of the Court.” (Grounds 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Learned counsel for the respondents adopted the brief and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.

I shall be guided by the appellants’ issues in resolving this appeal and the two issues shall be taken together.
ISSUE ONE
“Whether the learned trial Judge was right when His Lordship held that the identity of the land in dispute is uncertain?”.
ISSUE TWO
“Whether the learned trial Judge was right when His Lordship entered judgment in part on the counterclaim.”

Arguing on the issue one, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the identity of land in dispute was not made an issue by the parties either in their pleadings or in their final addresses but that the learned trial judge solely raised the issue without calling on the parties to address the Court on it. Relying on the case of Anyanwu Vs Uzowuaka (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 at 476 paragraphs D – E, it is submitted that the identity of the land cannot be in dispute where as in this case the respondents counterclaimed on the land.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that from the pleadings and evidence before the trial Court, the identity of the land in dispute was sufficiently described and filing of survey plan was therefore unnecessary. The Court was referred to Akanbi Agbeje & 2 Ors Vs Chief Joshua Ajibola & 2 Ors (2002) 2 SCM 32, Aremu Vs Adebayo (2007) 7 SCNJ 358, Emmanuel Ilona Vs Sunday Idakwo & Anor (2003)8 SCM 181 and Tako Vs Osita Echendu (2010) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 33 among others, to submit that in the instant case, the appellants were certain on the lands they are claiming known as Ohia Azu Okemini and Ohia-Iziegburu” which identity was fully described with certainty at paragraphs 7 – 11 of the statement claim and paragraphs 10 – 13 of the statement of claim particularly paragraph 12 at page 9 of the record, and the evidence of Cw1 who testified as to the description of the land.

Also referred is paragraphs 3(iii) and 3(iv) of the Statement of Defence at pages 43 – 47 of the record to show that the land is known to both parties and the parties did not join issue as to the identity of the land. Further referred is paragraphs (v) (vii) (d) (iii) (iv) at 5 and 6 of the statement of defence and counter-claim, to submit that the facts that the respondents counter-claim goes to show that they know the identity of the land. Anyanwu Vs Uzowuaka (supra) was referred to.

Submitting further, that it is trite where the identity of the land in dispute is known to the parties, no survey plan is necessary and absence of the survey plan is not fatal to the case of the appellants. Counsel referred to Ogedengbe Vs Balogun & Ors (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 280 and Udeze Vs Pant Chidebe (1990)1 SC 148 among others.

On issue two, it is the submission of the appellants’ counsel that the learned trial judge was in error to have entered judgment in favour of the respondents, when they led contradictory evidence on their root of title. That the respondents failed to show the exact dimension of the land they are claiming and also led conflicting and contradicting evidence in support of their claims. Counsel referred to paragraph 3(iii) at page 43 of the record on the measurement of the land claimed by the respondents as 500ft X115ft and relief 3 (i) at page 47 wherein the parties joined issues as to whether the land measures 500ft X115ft or 500ft X250ft. That it is important for the respondents to prove the identity of the land in view of reliefs 3(i) in their counter-claim. He referred to the evidence of Dw1 and the evidence of Dw2 under cross-examination, to submit that the learned trial Judge was in error to have held that the defendants’ father deforested Ohia-Iziegburu which finding is contrary to the pleadings and evidence of the respondents. That the finding of the learned trial judge is not supported by evidence on record and therefore is perverse. Counsel said the evidence of Cw2 which is supported by the evidence of DW2 is the more probable evidence being the eldest woman in the community. He referred to page 337 of the record and her statement on oath at page 286 of the record. That the evidence of traditional history led by the respondent is not cogent, credible and reliable and the trial Court ought not to have attached any weight to such evidence. The Court was referred to Ali Vs Alesinloye (2000) 4 SCNJ.

Counsel argued that the trial Court’s reliance on Exhibits “F” and “C” which are customary arbitration, can only become binding on the parties if the conditions stated in several decision of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are followed that is:
1. That both parties submitted to the arbitration.
2. The parties accepted the terms of arbitration.
3. That they agreed to be bound by the decision of the arbitration.
4. That the arbitration reached a trial decision and publish the award which was accepted.
He referred to Oparaji Vs Ohanu (1999) 6 SCNJ 38 and Ohiaeri Vs Akabeze & ors (1992) 2 SCNJ 76.

Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to show that these conditions were met for the trial judge to have relied on the decisions in Exhibits ‘F’ and ‘C’ by way of example.

It is finally submitted on this issue that in applying the principle of law, it is clear from the pleadings of the respondents they did not plead the fact that Exhibits “F” and “C” confirmed that the defendants’ father deforested the land in dispute as held by the trial Court at page 353 of the record, which decision is perverse and liable to be set aside. The Court was referred to Olubodun Vs Adeyemi (2008) 6 – 7 SC (Pt.1)1 and urged to resolve the issues in favour of the appellants. Responding, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a claimant in a declaratory action must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.

Counsel submitted that both appellants and the respondents own land in Ohia Azu Okemini and Ohia Iziegburu which both of them sold part of their respective portions to third parties, which was confirmed by CW1 in paragraph 6 of his statement on oath, and pleaded in paragraph 6 of the appellants’ statement of claim. That having been established that a part from the appellants, other persons also own land at the aforementioned places, the appellants owe a legal duty to explicitly state the area, dimension or size of their land since they seek declaration and injunction in respect thereto.

Relying on the case of Nwokidu Vs Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 362 and Addah Vs Uban Dawaki (2015) 7 NWLR 9Pt. 1458) 325, it is submitted that the law is that where a plaintiff claiming declaration and injunction, the area in dispute must be properly identified or delineated to ascertain the area that may be affected by the order of Court or injunction, which legal duty the appellants failed to discharge in this case.

Referring to paragraph 2 of the appellants’ reply and defence to counter-claim where they denied that the land Ohia Iziegburu is also known as Eli Iziegburu as stated by the defendants in paragraph 3(iii) of their statement of defence and also denied the measurement of the land in dispute as 500ft X115ft as claimed by the defendants, it is submitted that it was clear at the trial that the identity of the land in dispute was in issue and the appellants’ ought to explicitly prove the area of land claimed.

Submitting further, counsel said the evidence of claimants/Appellants at trial was completely hopeless and valueless and the traditional history sought to be relied upon, collapsed under cross-examination on the evidence of CW1. He referred to page 333 of the record and paragraph 4 of the appellants’ statement of claim and paragraph 4 of the statement on oath of Cw1 at pages 7 – 8 and 14 respectively of the record. Also referred is the testimony of CW2 at paragraph 7 of her written statement on oath at page 19 of the record, which evidence was not pleaded and goes to no issue. That from the facts, evidence and circumstances of the appellants’ case, the trial Court was right in dismissing the suit.

On issue two, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the evidence led by the appellants at trial was thoroughly discredited with no probative value attached to it. That their witnesses testified in support of the respondents’ case and the law allows a party to take advantage of an opponent’s evidence which supports his case. He referred to Fayemi Vs Oni (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 223 at 269 paragraphs B – G.

In response to the appellants’ submission on Exhibit “F” (arbitration) which the counsel said the trial Court relied upon, it is submitted that exhibit “F” was the proceedings that related to both parties and it was the appellants that activated the arbitration process against the respondents. That the appellants participated in the arbitration proceedings to the final award given. Counsel said there is a voluntary submission to the customary arbitration by parties which they impliedly agreed to accept the outcome as final. That exhibit “F” met all the conditions as laid down by law and has same force as a decision of a judicial body and the appellants who lost cannot turn round to say they are not bound by it. That it was only natural and justifiable that the trial Court entered judgment in part in favour of the respondents.

Counsel argued that Exhibit “F” was an arbitration award against the interest or claim of the appellants which award was not challenged by them despite the opportunity given to them to do so.

It is finally submitted on this issue that civil suits are faught on a preponderance of evidence or on a balance of probability and in the circumstance of this case, the Court is urged not to interfere with the findings of the trial Court but to resolve in favour of the respondents and dismiss the appeal.

The facts of the case are that the appellants and the respondents were descendants of Worlu-Wuche family of Eliokpo-Odu Rukpokwu in Obi/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State. The land Ohia-Azu-Okemini and Ohia-Iziegburu situate at Eliokpo-Odu Rukpokwu in Obi/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State belonged to the appellants’ father and Worlu Wuche family which both the appellants and the respondents belong to. The appellants as plaintiffs at the trial Court pleaded and gave evidence to the effect that the lands called Ohia-Azu-Okemini and Ohia-Iziegburu Originally part of the portion of which belonged to the appellants’ and the respondents’ grandfather, the entire Ohia-Azu-Okemini land was personally deforested by the appellants father and shared boundary with that deforested by their grandfather. And that the part deforested by the appellants’ father was inherited by the appellants as it did not form part of the Ohia-Azu-Okemini land shared by the Worlu Wuche family while the Ohia-Iziegburu land which belonged to the family was shared between the claimants and the defendants, with the appellants having their portion on the right hand side and that of the defendants on the left hand side.

The respondents on the other hand denied the appellants’ claim and testified that the land in dispute known as Eli Iziegburu was deforested by the defendants/respondents’ father Late Chief Theophilus Worlu, which devolved on the respondents on the demise of their father. That it was the undeforested part of the land at Eli-Iziegburu that the respondents’ father deforested during the lifetime of the parties’ grandfather and the respondents had since then been in undisturbed possession of the land.

The contention of the appellants is that the identity of the land in dispute was not made an issue by parties when the trial Court suo motu raised the issue without calling the parties to address the Court on it. That the identity of the land in dispute cannot be an issue where the defendants/respondents counter-claimed.

The appellants referred to the lands in dispute as “Ohia-Azu-Okemini” and “Ohia-Iziegburu” measuring 500ft by 250ft. The respondents called the lands “Eli Iziegburu and Eli Azu Okemini which measures 500ft by 115ft.

Both the appellants and the respondents are ad-idem on the location of the lands at Eliokpokwodu Rukpokwu. Although the defendants/respondents in paragraph 3(iii) of the joint statement of defence and counter-claim stated that the appellants erroneously call the land “Eli Iziegburu, it is settled law that if a party to a land in dispute calls the land in dispute by a particular name which is at variance with the name given to it by the adversary and his witnesses will not by any stretch of imagination given rise to any question or issue of identity so long as the parties and their witnesses are making reference to one and the same piece of land. See Onwumelu Vs Duru (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 525) 377, Tsemudiara Vs Messrs FG Spiropoulos & Co. Ltd (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 84 and RRCC (Nig.) Ltd Vs Alhassan (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1729) 233 at 340.
The calling of the land in dispute by different names by the parties is of no consequence once the defendant admits knowing the land over which the claimant has instituted an action and the identity of the land in dispute is not in doubt. See Edjekpo Vs Osia (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553 and Akinyemi Vs Ojo (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 188.

The parties also gave different measurements to the land in dispute. These claims of the parties are reflected in record and form part of the record. The trial Court therefore did not raise the matter suo motu. In Ikenta Best Nigeria Ltd Vs Attorney General, Rivers State 2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 612 at 642 paragraphs A – C, the Supreme Court per Tobi JSC held:
“A Court can only be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu, if the issue, matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Judge, by the nature of his adjudicatory functions can draw inference from stated facts in a case and by such inference, the judge can arrive at conclusions. It will be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from, facts in the case are introduced suo motu. This is not correct.”

In the instant case, it has not been denied that the different measurement of the land given by the parties was in the record inclusive of other facts related to the land, the Court is therefore entitled to look at the record to refer to it in consideration of any matter before it. See Agbareh Vs Mimra (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378 and NNPC Vs Roven Shipping Ltd (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 67.

Issue one is resolved against the appellants.

On issue two, the argument of the appellants’ counsel basically on the evaluation of the evidence by the trial Court. It is his contention that the respondents having led conflicting and contradictory evidence in proof of their counter-claim, the trial Court was in error to have entered judgment, in their favour.

The appellants and the respondents are descendants of Worlu-Wuche family of Eliokpo-odu Rukpokwu. Both of them are claiming ownership of the lands in dispute, namely Ohia-Azu-Okemini or Eli Azu Okemini and Ohia Iziegburu or Eli Iziegburu.

The evidence of CW1, the 1st appellant is to the effect that part of the entire Ohia-Azu-Okemini land was personally deforested by his father and shared boundary with that which his grandfather deforested. That the part deforested by his father was exclusively inherited by the claimants/appellants and did not form part of the Ohia –Azu-Okemini land shared by the Worlu Wuche family.

On the other hand, the evidence of DW2, the 1st respondent is that the land Eli Iziegburu was deforested by late chief Theophilus Worlu, his father and which by Ikwere native law and custom belong to him. That after the death of their father, the lands in dispute Eli Iziegburu and Eli Azu Okemini devolved upon his heiers, the defendants/respondents being his direct children. It is also in evidence that it was the undeforested part of the land of Eli Iziegburu that their father deforested during the lifetime of the parties’ grandfather and the respondents had since then been in undisturbed possession of the land.

It was sometime in the year 2008 that the 1st appellant summoned the respondents’ father before Rukpokwu Council of Chiefs and Owhor Holders for trespass and after listening to both parties, it was found in favour of the respondents. CW1, the 1st appellant confirmed under cross-examination that when he summoned the respondents’ father before Council of Chiefs it was found against him.

The evidence on record also shows that the respondents’ father also summoned one Nmecha Simeon who trespassed on the land at Eli-Iziegburu-Okemini before Rumuegwereke, and it was found for the respondents’ father. The said Nmecha Simeon also summoned the respondents’ father before Mgbuesilaru Council of Chiefs over the piece of land at Eli- Iziegburu-Okemini but lost. CW2 under cross-examination admitted that judgment was in favour of the respondents’ father when he summoned Simeon Nmecha before Rumuegwereke, that it was the respondents’ father that deforested the land.

Dw2 also confirmed under cross-examination that it was his father i.e respondents’ father that deforested the land and that apart from the land in dispute his family has no other land around the area in dispute.

Dw1 in his evidence stated that he shares boundary with the defendants/respondents at Eli- Iziegburu land.

The appellants’ assertion that the defendants/respondents trespassed into their land cannot be said to have been proved with the evidence on record in support of the case of the defendants/respondents. Although both the claimants/Appellants and the defendants/respondents have portion of lands at the lands in dispute namely Eli- Iziegburu-Okemini and Eli- Iziegburu it is their evidence i.e both parties that they sold portions of the lands they share as family land to third parties. It follows therefore, the trial Court was right when it held that the appellants must show with certainty the land they claimed to belong to them. This the appellants have failed to do.

In an action for declaration of title, while it is the plaintiff that must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence, the plaintiff is entitled to rely on aspects of the defendant’s case which tends to support his case. See C.D.C (Nig.) Ltd Vs SCOA (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) 300, Chukwueke Vs Okoronkwo (1999)1 NWLR (Pt. 587) 410, Pada Vs Galadima (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 436 and Hanatu Vs Amadi (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1728) 115.

The learned trial judge found and held that the evidence of the defendants/respondents to the effect that it was their father, late chief Theophilus Worlu deforested a portion of Ohia Iziegburu land which they inherited was accepted over the evidence of the claimants/appellants which was not cogent and reliable. I am persuaded by the position taken by the trial Court.

It is also evidence on record that prior to the institution of this suit the claimants/appellants and the defendants/respondents submitted their dispute in respect of the land at Ohia-Iziegburu deforested by the respondents’ father chief Theophilus Worlu to the council of chiefs and Owhor Holders of Rukporkwu. The proceedings and findings of the council of Rukpokwu are Exhibits “F” and “C” which verdict was in favour of the respondents that it was their late father chief Theophilus that deforested the portion of the land, and confirmed him to the ownership of the land and not as a family land. Exhibits “F” and “C” were tendered by the parties. The submission of the appellants’ counsel that the trial Court relied on Exhibit “F’ and “C”, the customary arbitration cannot be binding on the parties has no basis.

In the circumstance, the defendants/respondents proved their case on the balance of preponderance of evidence and were entitled to the declaration of title to the land in dispute. See Tukur Vs Sabi (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 544 and Uchendu vs Ogboni (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 6030 337.

The appellants did not adduce credible evidence in this case, consequently there was nothing on which to put on the scale and weigh against the evidence given by the respondents’. See Adeleke Vs Iyanda (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 1 and Isitor Vs Fakarode (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 416.

This Court has no business to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Issue two is resolved against the appellants. The issues having been resolved against the appellants, the result is that the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed.

The judgment of the trial Court is affirmed. Appeal dismissed. Costs of N200,000.00 awarded for the respondents against the appellants.

GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege to read in advance, the draft of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, T. Y. Hassan, JCA in which the instant appeal was found unmeritorious and was accordingly dismissed with costs of N200,000.00 awarded in favour of the Respondents.

I agree that the appeal be dismissed and I have nothing useful to add to the said judgment which accords with my opinion on the issues raised and argued by both parties.

Appeal is dismissed by me too, and I abide with the orders made as to costs awarded in favour of the Respondents.

Appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court in suit No: PHC/470/2011 delivered by the Hon. Justice A. l. Iyayi-Lamikanra on 6/12/2013 is hereby affirmed.

OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Tani Yusuf Hassan, J.C.A., in the draft. I agree with the reasoning, conclusions and final order made in the judgment.

I affirm the judgment of the lower Court. I dismiss this appeal. I award cost in the sum of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira) against the appellants, in favour of the respondents.

Appearances:

A.S. Abdulkadir Esq. with him O.T. West Esq. and F.O. Enajedu Esq. For Appellant(s)

Steve Gad For Respondent(s)