ALHAJI (CHIEF) RAIMI ALOYINLAPA & ORS v. PRINCE FATAI OYETUNJI & ORS
(2014)LCN/7608(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 8th day of December, 2014
CA/I/221/2012
RATIO
COURT: DISCRETION OF THE COURT; THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE TRIAL COURT WITH RESPECT TO ANY APPLICATION FOR JOINER OF PARTIES AND WHETHER CASES ARE DECIDED ON THEIR PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
Happily for this Court, respective leaned counsel have both referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in GREEN VS. GREEN (Supra) and learned counsel to the 1st – 4th Respondents had further referred to IGE VS. FARINDE (supra). The reference to these 2 decisions is good assistance and greatly helpful in the circumstance. Apart from the general principles for joinder of parties as expounded in these decisions, it must further be noted that the lower Court has a discretionary power to exercise with respect to any application for joinder of parties. It is also trite that cases are decided on their peculiar facts and circumstances. I am not under any illusion. The facts in this matter indeed pose a great challenge to any adjudicator. The need for caution and circumspection is indeed of paramount concern. Care must be taken so that the baby would not be thrown away with the bath water. per. ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL,J.C.A.
COURT: INTERFERENCE; WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION OF THE LOWER COURT
Where a trial court is vested with a discretionary power to exercise, this court is always very reluctant to interfere with the exercise of that power, except where upon a complaint it was satisfactorily shown that the power was not exercised judicially and judiciously.
In BIOCON AGROOCHEMICALS (NIG.) LTD & ORS VS. KUDU LTD & ANOR (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 493, (2000) LPELR 784 (SC) the supreme court decided that it is settled law that an appellate court will not generally interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court unless it is shown that there has been a wrongful exercise of the discretion. Where the lower court acted under a misconception of law or under a misapprehension of fact in that it either gave weight to irrelevant facts or it omitted to take into account matters that are relevant, or where it exercised or failed to exercise the discretion on wrong or inadequate materials and in all other cases where it is in the interest of justice to interfere.
The discretion to order joinder belongs to the lower court, it is not for this Court to usurp it and exercise/ even if it was of the opinion that it could have been exercised otherwise, except the exercise was perverse or unreasonable. per. ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL,J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MONYEREM OKORONKWO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. ALHAJI (CHIEF) RAIMI ALOYINLAPA
(Baale Baabo of Saki)
2. ALHAJI NASIRU SALAMI
3. MR. SAKA ATANDA
4. MR. TAOFEEK ABDULSALAM
5. MR. NAJEEM RAJI
6. MR. JIMOH SALAWU OJO
7. MR. NAJEEM RAIMI
8. MR. JIMOH OLAYANJU Appellant(s)
AND
1. PRINCE FATAI OYETUNJI
2. ALHAJI ABDUL RAHAMAN DAODU
3. ALHAJI FASASI OLATUNBOSUN
4. PA JIMOH OLAONIPEKUN BABALOLA
(For themselves and on behalf of Okere
of Saki Chieftaincy family)
AND
5. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ABEL OLATILEWA OLATUNBOSUN (RTD)
6. MAGDAVIEW NIGERIA LIMITED Respondent(s)
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL,J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Oyo State High Court, Saki Judicial Division delivered on 2nd July in suit No. HSK/45/08. delivered on 2nd July, 2012 in suit No. HSK/45/08.
The 5th and 6th Respondents herein were the plaintiffs at the Court below. In a further amended statement of claim dated 6th January 2011 but filed on 7th January, 2011, they sought for the following reliefs against the Appellants herein, as the Defendants. The reliefs are:-
“1. The sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being damages for the act of trespass by the Defendants, their servants/agents when the Defendants unlawfully entered the plaintiffs land which is in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and destroyed the plaintiffs’ cash crop (Mangoes, Oranges, Cashew and palm Trees) planted on the land in dispute.
2. An order of perpetual injunction of restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, agents, and/or privies from continuing further trespass on the land in dispute.”
In a further amended statement of defence and counter-claim, the Appellants/Defendants/counter claimants joined issues with the 5th and 6th Respondents and denied all the material averments in the claim and counter claimed thus:-
“i DECLARATION that the Defendants/Counter-Claimants, family are entitled to a Statutory Right of Occupancy over that parcel of farmland situate and lying at along Yemere/Ilesha Ibariba Road, Saki otherwise known to the plaintiffs/Defendants as “Ajuba Farm”, which portion is verged green in the survey drawn by y. Badmus, Registered Surveyor dated 19th day of March, 2010.
ii. DECLARATION that the Certificate of Occupancy granted in favour of the Plaintiffs/Defendants to Counter Claim is unlawful, irregular and null and void.
iii. An Order of perpetual Injunction restraining the Plaintiffs/Defendants from continuing further acts of trespass on the land in dispute.
iv. A sum of N20 million being general damages for the Plaintiffs/Defendants for acts of trespass on the Defendants/Counter-Claimant’s land.”
Issues now having been duly joined and the matter ready for trial, the 1st to 4th Respondents herein filed an application on 31-01-12 seeking for an order to be joined as 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants in the suit. It was brought pursuant to Order 13 rule 1 of the Oyo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (hereinafter simply referred to as Rules of the High Court). It is supported by a 20 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Alhaji Abdul Rahman Daodu, the 2nd respondent herein. The Defendants/Appellants, as Respondents to the application for joinder filed a counter affidavit of 21 paragraphs. Both parties filed and exchanged copious written addresses. At the hearing of the motion for joinder, the filed written addresses for and against it were adopted and relied on by respective learned counsel on behalf of the parties thus:-
In its ruling on the application, the lower court remarked and held “From the state of the pleadings, it is clear to me that the applicants have more than a passing interest in the land in dispute. If not joined the applicants would be guilty of standing-by. To shut them out would only lead to multiplicity of suits. It is better to establish if the defendants/Respondents are the absolute owners of the land in dispute or customary tenants of the applicants. There is no way the applicants would not be affected by the result of the counter-claim. It appears to me therefore that the joinder of the applicants is not only desirable but necessary so as to effectually and effectively settle all the issues involved once and for all.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is my view that the interest of the applicants will be jeopardized if they are not joined as co-claimants to contest the counter-claim of the defendants/Respondents. There is no conflict between the claims of the claimants and the party seeking to be joined. In their process they affirm the overlordship of the applicants and that the grant was made to them by the defendants with the involvement of the late Okere of Saki. In the circumstance the application succeeds. The applicants are hereby joined as the 3rd – 6th claimants respectively. All processes already filed in this suit are to be served on them within 14 days from today. No order as to costs.” (See pages 371 to 372 lines 31 to 24 of Record of Appeal).
The Appellants/Defendants/counter-claimants were dissatisfied with the ruling of the learned trial judge on his order for joinder. They sought and obtained leave of the Court below on 10/07/2012 to appeal against the said ruling. Sequel to that leave, they filed this appeal in a notice of appeal filed on 10/7 2012. It contains 4 grounds of appeal with very copious particulars.
To argue the appeal, the Appellants filed a brief of argument on 27/9/12. The 1st – 4th respondents replied with a brief of argument filed on 7/11/12, because the Appellants’ brief of argument was only served on 26/10/12. The 5th and 6th Respondents did not file any brief of argument. Learned counsel Mr. S.O. Ajayi, on behalf of the Appellants formulated and argued a lone issue for the determination of this appeal from the 4th rounds of appeal. The issue is:-
“whether the application of the 1st – 4th respondents for joinder as co-claimants in the main suit was rightly granted, bearing in mind the conflicting interest of the 1st- 4th Respondents and 5th – 6th Respondents.”
On behalf of 1st to 4th Respondents, learned counsel also formulated and argued a single issue for the determination of this appeal. It is:-
“Whether or not the 1st – 4th respondents were rightly joined as Co-Claimants in the main suit.”
At the hearing of the appeal respective learned counsel identified, adopted and relied on their respective briefs of argument. While learned counsel to the Appellants urged on the court to allow the appeal and set aside the ruling of the lower court ordering for joinder of additional claimants, learned counsel to the 1st – 4th Respondents urged on the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the ruling of the lower court sanctioning the joinder of additional claimants in suit No. HSK/45/08. Having filed no brief, the 5th and 6th Respondents did not have anything to urge on the Court.
In arguing the lone issue for determination in this appeal, learned counsel referred to the decision in GREEN vs. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (PT..61) 480 AT 495 – 496. He quoted very extensively from it and while underlining and emphasizing some aspects of the decision, he said that the authorities are settled that the acid test for joinder of a party is whether or not all the questions in the suit cannot be effectually and completely adjudicated upon without it. He further referred to the cases of IYIMOGA VS. GOVT OF PLATEAU STATE (1994) 8 NWLR (PT.360) 73 AT 106; PEENOK INV. LTD. VS. HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL LTD (1982) 12 SC 1 AT 21; UGORJI VS. ONWU (1991) 3 NWLR (PT.178) 177 AT 184 AND FADAYOMI VS. SADIPE (1996) 2 NWLR (PT.25) 736 (A) 742.
Against these decisions, learned counsel explained that the simple fact that a party has a relevant fact to a case at hand to tell or a relevant evidence to give does not make such a par1ry a necessary party who must be joined to the suit before same can be effectually and completely adjudicated upon. He added further that joinder of a party, no matter how imperative ought not to be granted where it would embarrass the other parties on record. According to learned counsel, and in order to reinforce his previous submissions, where a party wishes to be joined as a co-claimant to a suit, it must satisfy some laid down conditions and where such conditions are not satisfied an order of joinder could embarrass the other party. Also according to learned counsel, the applicants (1st – 4th Respondents) must be ad-idem with the 5th and 6th Respondents and act together as well as to be represented by the same counsel. Against these, learned counsel, maintained that the joinder in the circumstance of this appeal failed to follow the well laid down affidavits and applicable principles.
In his attempt to underscore some of the peculiar facts and circumstances in this matter or may be considered so, learned counsel pointed that there is a counterclaim further to the defence of the main claim. He highlighted some of the elements and essential features of a counterclaim and argued that what the 1st – 4th Respondents ought to have done was to join as Co-Defendants with the Appellants rather than Co-Claimants with the 5th and 6th Respondents. He argued further that because they did not apply to be joined as Co-Defendants, their application ought not to be granted.
Learned counsel took a further look at some of the peculiar issues in this matter and raised what he considered as, some pertinent questions and maintained that the joinder merely caused embarrassment to the Appellants. He referred to the cases of HENSHAW VS. EFFANGA (2009) 11 NWLR (PT.1151) 65 AT 98 AND NWARAYA VS. EGBOKA (2005) 10 NWLR (PT. 933) 241 and urged on this Court to hold that the joinder of the 1st – 4th Respondents as Co-Claimants was erroneous and ought to accordingly be set aside. He further urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Appellants and in consequence thereof allow the appeal.
In his response, learned counsel Mr. Aderogba,Counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondents began by referring to a number of decided cases and explained that the principles that guide the courts in deciding whether or not to join applicants as claimants or defendants in an action have been laid down in many judicial authorities. He proceeded to identify the following principles thus:-
(i) Whether there is an existing legal claim
(ii) Whether the party sought to be joined is a necessary party in the adjudication of the matter.
(iii) Whether the new party ought to have been made a party in the suit right from the date of commencement of the action.
(iv) Whether the joinder will enable the court effectually and completely determine the issue involved.
(v) Whether the suit will be defeated if the party is not joined.
(vi) Whether the party will have his interest irreparably prejudiced if an order joining him as a party is not made.
(vii) Whether the party will be legally bound by the judgment of the court even if not joined.
(viii) Whether in law there is any valid action against the party sought to be joined to defend.
The decisions from which learned counsel claimed to have distilled the above 8 principles include:-
IGE VS. FARINDE (1994) 7 – 6 SCNJ (PART II) 284 AT 287 ‘E2’80” 289 AYORINDE vs. ONI (2000) 2 SC AT 49; (2000) FWLR (PE. 3) 445 AT 464.OSONDU VS. BONAH (2000) 3 SC AT 55.),EBONGO VS. UWEMEDIMO (1995) 8 NWLR (PT. 411) 22 AT 49. IN RE -JOE AKPUTA (1996) 7 NWLR PT. 461 AT 448,GREEN VS. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) 480 AT 495 – 496.
According to Mr. Aderogba, of counsel an application for joinder can be granted even if only one of those principles is satisfied.
Against this explanation, learned counsel went further to highlight the features and nature of the claims in the main action of the 5th and 6th Respondents and counter claim of the Appellants. He added further that the 5th and 6th Respondents denied the overlordship of the land by the Appellants and ascribed title to the 1st – 4th Respondents as well as a step by step chronicling of how the land was given to them by the family of the 1st to 4th Respondents, through the immediate past Okere of saki, Late Oba Tijani Abimbola Oyedokun II. Learned counsel also referred to paragraphs 1- 14 of the affidavit in support of the application for joinder and reliefs sought by the 1st – 4th Respondents as set out in their proposed statement of claim, attached to the application together with the sizes of the land to show that the Counterclaim incorporates a land area much more than in the main claim of the 5th and 6th Respondents. Against the backdrop of this, learned counsel argued that there is no conflict of interest in the respective claims, and because the 1st – 4th Respondents are contending that it was their family that granted the ancestors of the Appellants the land over which they now claim to own/ for farming purposes and is the subject of their counterclaim, the outcome of any decision on the Counter-claim will effect their interest.
While referring to the decisions in GREEN vs. GREEN (supra) and other decisions, learned counsel, explained the nature of a counter-claim and argued that failure of the 1st to 4th respondents to apply to be joined in the suit to defend the counter-claim of the Appellants in the circumstance would make them guilty of standing by while another party was fighting their cause. Learned counsel argued further that because the counter-claim was adverse to the interest of the 1st – 4th Respondents they were entitled to be joined to attack it as provided by law. In his attempt to debunk the argument of learned counsel to the Appellants that the order of joinder had caused them undue embarrassment, Mr. Aderogba, of counsel, opined that while the 5th and 6th Respondents are claiming damages for trespass and injunction against further and future trespass as well as admitting the overlordship of the 1st – 4th Respondents of an area of 457.872 Hectares, the 1st – 4th Respondents are claiming a declaration for entitlement to a statutory right of occupancy over 10,073.132 Hectares of land as the subject matter of the counter-claim. He added that the interest of all the Respondents are not conflicting and therefore there was no way the joinder would cause any embarrassment to the Appellants.
In a further challenge to the entrenched arguments of the Appellants that the 1st – 4th Respondents could have either began a separate suit of their own or the application for joinder ought to have been to be joined as co-Defendants, learned counsel submitted that the former situation would engender multiplicity of actions and the latter was not feasible because the 1st – 4th Respondents have the same and more encompassing interest with the 5th and 6th Respondents against the Appellants. He referred to and quoted very extensively from the ruling of the lower court more particularly
At pages 371 to 372 of the record of appeal and urged on the court to resolve this issue against the Appellants. He further urged that this appeal be dismissed and the ruling of the lower Court be affirmed.
I have carefully read and considered all the arguments and submissions of respective learned counsel in this appeal. From the entire circumstance of this matter, it would appear that the learned trial judge granted the order for the joinder to avoid multiplicity of actions and also to allow the 1st – 4th Respondents an opportunity to defend the counter-claim effectively or so that they would not be seen to have stood by while another party was fighting their battle. The learned trial judge arrived at the above views, findings and conclusions after he had identified some grey areas and complex issues the order of joinder could possibly engender, but settled and believed that making the order was the right thing to do.
Happily for this Court, respective leaned counsel have both referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in GREEN VS. GREEN (Supra) and learned counsel to the 1st – 4th Respondents had further referred to IGE VS. FARINDE (supra). The reference to these 2 decisions is good assistance and greatly helpful in the circumstance. Apart from the general principles for joinder of parties as expounded in these decisions, it must further be noted that the lower Court has a discretionary power to exercise with respect to any application for joinder of parties.
It is also trite that cases are decided on their peculiar facts and circumstances. I am not under any illusion. The facts in this matter indeed pose a great challenge to any adjudicator. The need for caution and circumspection is indeed of paramount concern. Care must be taken so that the baby would not be thrown away with the bath water.
The 1st – 4th Respondents, in their proposed statement of claim have made very wide sweeping averments which render ail the facts in support of the counter-claim of the Appellants very highly contentious. For example, paragraphs 11 to 17 of the affidavit in support of the motion for joinder were denied in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit against the order for joinder. Paragraphs 9 and 12 of the affidavit in support would appear to have been admitted in the counter affidavit of the Appellants. If these 2 paragraphs of the affidavit in support are taken as admitted for not having been specifically denied in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the effect is obvious: that because of the build up of facts involved in the series of averments prior to and in paragraph g as well as in paragraph 12 and subsequent to it. There is also the issue of the certificate of occupancy granted by the Oyo State Government on the land in the claim.
In the case of IGE VS. FARINDE (supra), the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court of Lagos state and the Court of Appeal on an order for joinder of co-plaintiffs in a matter that had a counter-claim which went beyond the claim of the original plaintiffs.
After referring to its earlier decisions in UKU VS. OKUMAGBA (1974) 3 SC AND IN RE: MOGAJI (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 19) 759, the supreme court, against the facts in IGE vs. FARINDE (supra), noted that a court had jurisdiction to join a person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose of effectually and completely adjudicating upon and settle all questions involved in the cause or matter before it as well as to curb multiplicity of suits in community lands. The Supreme Court then went further to set out some general principles guiding an application for joinder. It also emphasized that joinder could be made in the discretion of the court because of the need for parties to be bound by the outcome of a case, as well as the need for exercise of any discretion in that behalf to be made judicially and judiciously, upon being satisfied that the applicant is a person who ought to be joined in the circumstance.
In addition to all the foregoing the court re-stated that the power of a trial court to join a person/ whether as a plaintiff or as Defendant to a suit is entirely discretionary and, except it proceeded to make such an order for joinder upon wrong principles, an appeal court will be very reluctant to interfere with its order.
In its earlier decision in GREEN vs. GREEN (supra) the supreme court did not decide differently on the general principles guiding an application for joinder as outlined in the latter decision in IGE vs. FARINDE (supra) but it emphasized that the only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled and there must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.
Now, with respect to the facts and circumstances in the instant appeal, paragraphs 3 to 8 of the affidavit in support of the joinder application is of significance. I hereby reproduce a some thus:-
3. “That this application is brought on behalf of Okere of Saki Chieftaincy family, Saki.
4. That my family has just become aware of the claim and the counter claim of the claimants and the Defendants in this suit.
5. That the land lying, situate and being at Yemere/Ilesha Ibariba road, Saki otherwise called Ajuba farm and the entire land shown in the Defendants/counter claimants survey plan Number OY/167/2010/DSP.01 measuring and area of 10073. 132 Hectares prepared by Y. Badmus a registered Surveyor belongs to the Okere of Saki Chieftaincy family and not the Defendants family.
6. That the holder of Okere of Saki chieftaincy title is the paramount traditional head and ruler of the Saki Community. The Okere of Saki chieftaincy is a recognized chieftaincy while the Baale Baabo is a mirror chieftaincy.
7. That according to traditional history the Okere of Saki Royal chieftaincy family lay claim over the land through over lordship arising through conquest by war and first settlement since the founding of Saki Community from the immemorial.
8. That Akinbekun was the first Okere of Saki at a time beyond human memory and founded Saki which encompasses the land being claimed by the Defendants and extended to the Oyo State boundaries with Kwara State.”
Against these averments, the Appellants in their counter affidavit in paragraph 9 aver thus:-
9″that the land is dispute forms part of a large expanse of land that belonged to Baale Baabo family of Saki…”
It was against this scenario that the learned trial judge considered the other materials, such as the counterclaim of the Appellants and the proposed statement of claim and granted the order of joinder.
I have noted some of the peculiar complexities in the circumstance of this matter. Some, are strong hurdles or stumbling blocks. The action as of now is at cross roads. The parties have not gotten to those hurdles, in my humble view. It is said that we only cross the bridge when we get to it. Let me observe obiter dictum that joinder of plaintiffs has a number of implications which should fully be considered before it is embarked upon. Co-plaintiffs are represented at trial by one legal practitioner and their case is conducted on their collective behalf, it is therefore essential that as far as the prosecution of the suit is concerned, those proposing to join and are joined as co-plaintiffs should be agreeable to all the necessary steps to be taken in the presentation of their case, see Re: MATTEW OATES VS. MOONEY (1905) 2 CH.460.
In granting the order the lower court was exercising a discretion. In the entire arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the Appellants he failed to show that the exercise of the discretion by the lower court was not made judicially and judiciously; or that the court considered any irrelevant fact in arriving at its decision.Where a trial court is vested with a discretionary power to exercise, this court is always very reluctant to interfere with the exercise of that power, except where upon a complaint it was satisfactorily shown that the power was not exercised judicially and judiciously.
In BIOCON AGROOCHEMICALS (NIG.) LTD & ORS VS. KUDU LTD & ANOR (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 493, (2000) LPELR 784 (SC) the supreme court decided that it is settled law that an appellate court will not generally interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court unless it is shown that there has been a wrongful exercise of the discretion. Where the lower court acted under a misconception of law or under a misapprehension of fact in that it either gave weight to irrelevant facts or it omitted to take into account matters that are relevant, or where it exercised or failed to exercise the discretion on wrong or inadequate materials and in all other cases where it is in the interest of justice to interfere.
The discretion to order joinder belongs to the lower court, it is not for this Court to usurp it and exercise/ even if it was of the opinion that it could have been exercised otherwise, except the exercise was perverse or unreasonable. Against the facts and circumstances in the instant appeal, learned counsel to the Appellants did not argue and did not also present any materials upon which this Court can find his invitation for this Court to interfere and set aside the order for joinder. There is no strong temptation to accept the invitation. It was not well made.
It is for these reasons that I resolve the lone issue for determination in this appeal is resolved against the Appellants and in favour of the 1st – 4th Respondents. Having resolved the sole issue for determination against the Appellants, this appeal is dismissed. The ruling of the High Court of Oyo State, Saki, Judicial Division delivered on 2nd July, 2012in suit No.HSK/45/08 is hereby affirmed and upheld. I order for N50, 000 costs.
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the judgment of my Lord Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, JCA and for reasons and conclusion therein, I agree that the appeal is bereft of merit and it is hereby dismissed.
I also affirm and uphold the Ruling of the court below delivered on 2nd July, 2012in Suit Number HSK/45/08.
I order accordingly and abide by the consequential order therein relating to cost.
NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the judgment delivered in this appeal by my brother Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel JCA, in which his Lordship reviewed the exercise of discretion by the judge of the lower court in relation to joinder of interested party and found no reason to disturb the exercise of discretion.
I agree entirely with the reasoning expressed and with the consequential orders made.
Appearances
Mr. S.O Ajayi with Mr. O. Ayandipo, Mr. O.T. Olajide-Poko, Miss O. Kazeem and Miss E.S. YekiniFor Appellant
AND
Mr. Aroju Abdul-Razaq with Miss M.I. Salami for the 1st ” 4th Respondents.
Mr. J.D. Olaniyan for the 5th and 6th Respondents.For Respondent
