ALHAJI GARBA OLOWO v. KWARA STATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
(2012)LCN/5722(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 10th day of December, 2012
CA/IL/39/2012
RATIO
LAND LAW: BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
The law is very well settled that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the claimant to satisfy the court he is entitled on the evidence adduced by him to the declaration he seeks. In doing so he must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. See Okafor & ors v. Idigo III & ors. (1984) 15 NSCC 360, (1984) 1 SCNLR 48; Omibudo v. Akibu (1982) 7 S.C. 60. However where the evidence given by the defendant is favourable to the claimant’s case, the claimant can rely on such evidence to strengthen this case. See Egonu v. Egonu (1978) 11 & 12 SC 111 where the Supreme Court had this to say:-
“Over the years, it is one of the oft repeated catch phrases, but a well settled principle of law that in a claim for a declaration of title the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case (evidence) and not on the weakness of the defence (evidence) although any evidence adduced by the defence which is favourable to the plaintiff’s case will go to strengthen the case for the plaintiff.” It is therefore very essential for the party seeking a declaration of title to land to state specifically the nature of the title he claims. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A
APPEAL: ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TOWARDS ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
This court will therefore only interfere with the performance of the lower court in this area if it has drawn wrong conclusion from accepted or proved facts. In other words, this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment and evaluation of evidence by the lower court in absence of special circumstances warranting such interference. See Eki vs. Giwa (1977) 11 NSCC 96, Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 35 @ 41. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A
LAND LAW: WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
It is now settled that a party may prove his title to a piece of land in any of the following five ways:-
- By traditional evidence
- By documents of title
- By various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership.
- By acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land.
- By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such land would, in addition be the owner of the disputed land. see Idundun & Ors v. Okumagba (supra) at 248; Ikafor v. Idigo (supra); Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 511; Anyanbusi v. Ugwunze (1995) 7 SCNJ 55; Onwugbufor vs. Okoye (1996) 1 SCNJ 1; Oyadare v. Keji (2005) 1 SC. 28. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A
LAND LAW: REQUIREMENTS FOR PLEADING TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE OF INHERITANCE
Now, where a plaintiff is relying on traditional evidence of inheritance in proof of his title to a disputed land, he shall plead and give evidence of facts relation to:-
- How the land was founded;
- The persons who founded the land and exercised original acts of possession;
- The person on whom the title in respect of the land devolved since its first founding.
See Obiola & ors vs. Duru & Ors (1994) 10 SCNJ 48 @ 61; Odi v. Iyala (2004) 4 SCNJ 35; Eze v. Atasie (2000) 6 SCNJ 209. Where a claimant simply states that the disputed land which he claims belong to his family without more may not be enough to sustain his claim.
See Alade v. Awo (1975) 4 SC 215; Piaro vs. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC. 31; Bamgboye Vs. Olusola (1996) 4 SCNJ 154 @ 165; Lawal v. Olufowobi (1996) 1 SCNJ 376 @ 384. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A
JUSTICES
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBANDE O. F. OGBUINYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ALHAJI GARBA OLOWO Appellant(s)
AND
KWARA STATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Respondent(s)
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a writ of summons and a statement of claim both filed on the 28th of May 2010, the Appellant herein claimed against the Respondent the following reliefs:-
I. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to all that piece or parcel of land at Oke Sunna (Gbakan) village bounded in the North by the Nda Village land and in the South with Adewole Area, Ilorin, Kwara State.
II. A declaration that the purported acquisition of the claimants said land by the Defendant is illegal, unconstitutional null and void.
III. A declaration that the Defendant is a trespass on the Claimant said land.
IV. The sum of N500,000.00 being special and general damages for trespass committed by the defendant for wrongful and unlawful entry of the claimant’s land situate, lying and being at Adewole Housing Estate Area, Ilorin, Kwara State.
V. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents servants and/or any person or persons claiming through it or any of them from continuing with the aforementioned act of trespass.
The claims were front loaded with the statement on oath of the Appellant and a list of document to be relied upon during the trial.
The Respondent, who was the Defendant at the lower court, filed a memorandum of appearance on the 16th of July, 2010 and thereafter it filed a statement of defence of twenty paragraphs. Attached to the statement of defence is a statement on oath of the defence witness, Baba Abdulrahaman and a list of documents to be tendered in evidence at the trial.
In reaction to the statement of defence the Appellant filed a reply to the statement of defence on 6th August, 2010.
Issues having been joined and after a pre-trial conference, the learned trial judge heard the parties finally on those issues settled at the pre-trial conference. At the end of the trial and a in a reserved and considered judgment, the Appellant’s claims were dismissed. The appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court.
Being aggrieved, he has brought this appeal. The notice of appeal at pages 123-135 of the record contains eight grounds of appeal.
Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Appellant formulated one issue for determination of this appeal and it reads as follows:-
“Whether having regard to the state of pleadings and evidence adduced at the trial court, the learned trial Judge was not wrong in dismissing the Appellant’s claims against the Respondent.”
The respondent also formulated one issue only for determination of this appeal. It reads thus:-
“Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence of the parties on the record the learned trial judge was not right in dismissing the Appellant’s claims against the Respondent.”
The Appellant sole issue for determination of the appeal is similar to the sole issue formulated by the Respondent. I will therefore consider the appeal on the basis of the issue formulated by the Appellant.
Before I consider the argument of learned counsel for the parties in support of the sole issue for determination of this appeal, I will like to set up albeit briefly, the fact of this case. The claimant initiated this action at the lower court in a representative capacity. He sued for himself and on behalf of the Oke Sunna (Gbakan) village. His claim is that his family under the Native Law and Custom is the beneficial owner and holder of the right of occupancy in and over the disputed parcel of land and that since the time immemorial the said family has been enjoying all rights of ownership and possession over the land without any interruption from anybody. However sometimes in September 2001, some people claimed to be agents of the Respondent, a company created by Kwara State Government, told him (Appellant) that the disputed land had been compulsorily acquired by the Kwara State Government and handed same to the Respondent for the purpose of developing Housing Estate. The Appellant thereafter wrote a letter dated 22nd September 2001 to the Respondent in which he requested for part of the land to be allocated to the Appellant’s village. The Respondent through a letter dated 28/11/2001 released part of the land to the village for the sum of N57,862.35 but went on to allocate the same piece of land to other private individual. The Appellant is claiming that they were deceived to believe that the land had been acquired by the Government as such they have discovered was not acquired by the Government.
The Respondent however insisted that the Kwara State Government acquired the land where Adewole Housing Estate is sited including the Gbakan, Budo Iya and Budo Nda villages in the early 1970s and paid the necessary compensation to the people of those villages.
In arguing the appeal, Mr. Yunus Lambo Akanbi, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant at the trial court discharge the burden of proof of this case through pleaded facts in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the statement of claim and led evidence in prove of his title to the land in question by two of the five ways as enunciated in Idundun v. Okunmagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 277 @ 144 and Piaro vs. Tenalo & Anor (1976) 1 SC 19 @ 26. Learned counsel cited in addition the following authorities – Ojelade v. Soroye (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt.549) 284 @ 301, paragraphs G – H; Orizu v. Anyaegbunam (1978) 5 SC 21; Adeleke v. Akanji (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt.341) 715 @ 727; Nnadi v. Okoro (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.535) 573 @ 602.
In a further argument, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial judge was wrong in dismissing the Appellant’s claims on the ground that the Appellant did not call additional witnesses to corroborate his evidence when in fact the Respondent admitted in his evidence that the land in dispute belonged to the Appellant, but claimed that same had been acquired compulsorily. Learned counsel contended that there is no provision as to the number of witnesses a party must call before he succeeds in any matter, and that unchallenged evidence of a single witness is enough to ground claims of a party where such evidence is credible. Learned counsel insisted that the unchallenged evidence of the Appellant in the instant case is credible and has remained unchallenged as such the court would have acted on it and grant all the Appellant’s claims. In aid learned counsel cited Omisade v. R (1965) 4 NSCC 98 @ 113 – 144; Sambo v. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.300) 399 @ 413; Fan Milk Ltd v. Edemeroh (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.672) 402 @ 421; Agih v. Ejinkeoye & Bros Ltd (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.228) 200 @ 211.
Learned counsel made reference to pages 116 – 117 where the learned trial judge held that the Respondent’s witness had failed to prove that the Appellants family land had been acquired and compensation paid, and forcefully submitted that the learned trial judge having found that no evidence has been adduced by the Respondent to show that the Appellant’s land was legally acquired in 2001 or at any other time as asserted by the Respondent, it was wrongful to dismiss the Appellant’s claims.
Finally learned counsel urged this court to be guided by all the authorities cited in his submission and to resolve the sole issue in his favour by allowing the appeal.
Mr. Tunji Ojuokaiye, learned counsel for the Respondent, who also settled the Respondent’s brief of argument submitted that the Appellant has failed to prove the acts of leasing and ownership pleaded by him as he has not shown how his family got to the land or from whom he and his family inherited the land in dispute.
According to the learned counsel where a party fails to prove this radical title, his claims must fail. In aid learned counsel cited Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 4-5 SC (Pt.111) 1 @ 32 lines 30 – 35; Dike v. Okoledo (1997) 7 SC (Pt.111) 35 @ 41. Learned counsel also denied that the Respondent ever admitted that the Appellant owned and possessed the disputed land before it was acquired by the Kwara State Government.
In a further argument learned counsel submitted that the Appellant did not plead and prove on the balance of probability the numerous acts of ownership on the land and that he cannot prop up any unclear admission on the part of the Respondent to ask for judgment since he can only rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the Respondent’s case. In aid he cited Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 – 5 SC (Pt.111) 48 @ 64; Vincent Bello vs. Magnus Eweka (1981) 1 S.C. 101, (1981) 1 SC. (Reprint) 63; Tanko vs. Echendu (2010) 12 SC (Pt.1) 33 @ 53; Owoade v. Omitola (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt.77) 423; Fabunmi vs. Agbe (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.2) 299.
Learned counsel referred to Exhibits P1, D1 and D2 which were correspondences between the Appellant and the Respondent in which the Appellant requested for plots from the disputed land which were subsequently granted to him and his family by the Respondent and submitted that the transaction clearly showed that the Appellant has no title to the disputed land beyond that which was granted to him.
Finally learned counsel urged this court to dismiss this appeal.
In the reply brief, the Appellant distinguished the facts in Olagunju vs. Adesoye and Dike v. Okoledo (supra) from the instant case where he said in those cases, there was evidence of proper acquisition of the disputed land, whereas in the instant case there is no evidence of acquisition of the disputed land by Kwara State Government. According to the learned counsel, the two cases of Olagunju and Dike are inapplicable to the instant case on the question of admission of the claims.
Learned counsel submitted that the Respondent admitted the Appellant’s title over the disputed land at paragraph 3 of the statement of defence and in Exhibit D3. It is the further submission of learned counsel that where the Respondent’s case is that it acquired the land, the burden is on it to show evidence of acquisition of the land.
By the writ of summons and the statement of claim which were filed at the lower court. The Appellant’s claim is for declaration of title over the parcel of land lying and situate at Gbakan Village in his favour. According to the Appellant, his family is under the Native Law and Custom, the beneficial owner and holder of the right of occupancy in and over the said parcel of land.
The law is very well settled that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the claimant to satisfy the court he is entitled on the evidence adduced by him to the declaration he seeks. In doing so he must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. See Okafor & ors v. Idigo III & ors. (1984) 15 NSCC 360, (1984) 1 SCNLR 48; Omibudo v. Akibu (1982) 7 S.C. 60. However where the evidence given by the defendant is favourable to the claimant’s case, the claimant can rely on such evidence to strengthen this case. See Egonu v. Egonu (1978) 11 & 12 SC 111 where the Supreme Court had this to say:-
“Over the years, it is one of the oft repeated catch phrases, but a well settled principle of law that in a claim for a declaration of title the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case (evidence) and not on the weakness of the defence (evidence) although any evidence adduced by the defence which is favourable to the plaintiff’s case will go to strengthen the case for the plaintiff.”
It is therefore very essential for the party seeking a declaration of title to land to state specifically the nature of the title he claims.
The sole issue formulated by the Appellant clearly attacks the finding of facts by the lower court and seriously challenges the ascription of probative value to such facts. I wish to state from the onset that the appraisal of oral evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence is the primary duty of the lower court that had the opportunity of listening to those pieces of evidence. This court will therefore only interfere with the performance of the lower court in this area if it has drawn wrong conclusion from accepted or proved facts. In other words, this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment and evaluation of evidence by the lower court in absence of special circumstances warranting such interference. See Eki vs. Giwa (1977) 11 NSCC 96, Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 35 @ 41.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted in argument that the Appellant hinged and proved his title to the disputed land by two of the five ways as laid down in Indundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC. 227 @ 2481 and Piaro v. Tenalo & Anor (1976) 1 SC 19 @ 26, at paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the statement of claim. For ease of reference, paragraph 4, 5, and 6 of the statement of claim are here under reproduced as follows:-
“4. That my family has since the time immemorial been enjoying all rights of ownership and possession over the said piece of land without any interruption from any person(s).
5. That having been in absolute possession and ownership of the said land, I have been exercising (on behalf of my family) acts of ownership such as farming and grant to private individuals and members of my family have been planting sugar cane on part of the land for a very long time.
6. That as the representative of the family I have my own personal house within the village and other members of the village equally have their respective houses within the village.”
It is now settled that a party may prove his title to a piece of land in any of the following five ways:-
1. By traditional evidence
2. By documents of title
3. By various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership.
4. By acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land.
5. By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such land would, in addition be the owner of the disputed land. see Idundun & Ors v. Okumagba (supra) at 248; Ikafor v. Idigo (supra); Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 511; Anyanbusi v. Ugwunze (1995) 7 SCNJ 55; Onwugbufor vs. Okoye (1996) 1 SCNJ 1; Oyadare v. Keji (2005) 1 SC. 28.
From the paragraph of the statement of claim which I have reproduced elsewhere in this judgment, the two ways relied upon by the appellant in prove of his case are the traditional history of inheritance and the various acts of ownership. Now, where a plaintiff is relying on traditional evidence of inheritance in proof of his title to a disputed land, he shall plead and give evidence of facts relation to:-
a. How the land was founded;
b. The persons who founded the land and exercised original acts of possession;
c. The person on whom the title in respect of the land devolved since its first founding.
See Obiola & ors vs. Duru & Ors (1994) 10 SCNJ 48 @ 61; Odi v. Iyala (2004) 4 SCNJ 35; Eze v. Atasie (2000) 6 SCNJ 209. Where a claimant simply states that the disputed land which he claims belong to his family without more may not be enough to sustain his claim.
See Alade v. Awo (1975) 4 SC 215; Piaro vs. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC. 31; Bamgboye Vs. Olusola (1996) 4 SCNJ 154 @ 165; Lawal v. Olufowobi (1996) 1 SCNJ 376 @ 384.
The Appellant’s statement of claim is at pages 3 – 9, while his statement on oath is at pages 10-16 of the printed record of this appeal.
I have read through the two documents and I have not seen where the Appellant pleaded how the land was founded, the person who founded the land and exercised original acts of possession and the person through whom the title to the land devolved to the Appellant since its first founding.
Mr. Y. L. Akanbi, learned counsel for the Appellat submitted at page 8 paragraphs 5:07 – 5:08 that the Respondent admitted at paragraph three of the statement of defence that the disputed land belongs to the Appellant’s family, but that the land was acquired by Kwara State Government and handed over to the Respondent for management. According to the learned counsel, this admission was acknowledged by the learned trial judge in the judgment of the lower court. Having acknowledged that the ownership of the land originally belonged to the Appellant, learned counsel contended that it was wrong for the court to dismissing the Appellant’s case.
The statement of defence which was filed by the Respondent herein at the lower court is at pages 29 – 30 of the record of this appeal paragraph 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the said statement of defence reads as follows:-
“3. In response to paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, of the statement of claims the Defendant avers that the Kwara State Government acquired the land where Adewole Estate is sited including the Gbakan, Budo Iya and Budo Nda village in the early 1970s and paid the necessary compensation to the people of those villages at the time and that the issues of acquisition cannot arise now any more.
5. The Defendant denies that the claimant’s family is the customary owner of the land he is claiming.
6. In recognition of the Defendant’s ownership and management of the land within the estate, the claimant at various times had reverted to the Defendant for transfer of same and for release of certain plots of lands to them for extension of their village. The Defendant shall rely on all relevant documents at the trial which are hereby pleaded.
7. In order to put the record straight and for documentation the claimant filed an application to the Defendant to regularize all the land allocated to his family in 2005. The application form for plot allocation dated 18th November, 2005 is herby pleaded.
8. The Defendant avers that no agent or any person representing the Defendant approached the claimant in 2001 for the purpose of acquisition of the claimant’s land. The land in and around Adewole Estate including the Budo Nda village and Gbakan village were part of the land which had long been used for the construction of Adewole Housing Estate, Ilorin, Kwara State as far back as 1976 and 1977.”
The Appellant initiated this action at the lower court in a representative capacity. For himself and on behalf of family of Oke Suna (Gbakan village of Adeole Area, Ilorin). This is what appeared in the writ of summon and the statement of claim.
However in the statement on oath, the Appellant introduced himself as representative of the Budo Iya family of Budo Nda village of Adeole Area, Ilorin, Kwara State.
Paragraph 3 of the statement of defence states that the Kwara State government acquired the land where Adewole Estate is cited including the Gbakan, Budo Iya and Budo Nda villages.
Without further explanation, it will be difficult to understand how the Appellant that sued on behalf of himself and his family of Oke Suna (Gbakan) village on the writ of summons and statement of claim suddenly changed to being a representative of family of Budo Nda village, a family that is not known in the originating process. Be that as it may, there is nowhere in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence that would suggest that the Respondent herein admitted that the piece of land under reference belonged to the Appellant and his family. Admission is a statement by a party or someone identified with him in legal interest of the existence of a fact which is relevant to the cause of his adversary. Before a pleading can be qualified as an admission in law, it must be clear upon the whole statement of defence that it is indeed an unequivocal admission. See Lewis & Peat (NR1) vs Akhimien (1976) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 460; Oladipo vs. Ayantunji (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt.831) 418 @ 432 paragraph G. In the instant case the defendant at paragraph 5 of the statement of defence flatly denied that the Appellant’s family is the customary owner of the land he is claiming. With that denial, the Appellant who was the claimant at the lower court was saddled with the burden of proving his title through traditional evidence as he pleaded. Having failed to do that, the learned trial judge was right when she held at page 106 of the record in her judgment that the Appellant has failed to prove his title to the land. It does not matter whether the learned trial judge considered three or two ways of proving title to land.
The averment at paragraph 5 of the statement of claim states that the Appellant will at the trial show that he and his family have been in absolute possession and ownership of the disputed piece of land and that his family has been exercising act of ownership such as farming and grant to private individual. This averment is contrary to Exhibits P1, D1 and D2. Exhibit P1 is an application by the village head of Budo Nda village to the Respondent requesting for release of land to the Gbakan and Budo Iya village in Adewole Housing Estate which was “tendered by the Respondent. The Appellant confirmed the authenticity of the application by tendering the same letter at the lower court, which was admitted and marked exhibit D1. The letter that conveyed allocation of plots as a result of Exhibit P1 and D1 was admitted and marked Exhibit D2. If possession was on the Appellant as alluded to, then there would have been no need for Exhibits P1, D1 and D2. Clearly these Exhibits have rendered the averment in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim impotent.
In his reply brief, learned counsel for the Appellant seem to deny that his claim is not based on traditional history and that the cases of Olagunju v. Adesoye and Dike v. Okoledo cited by the Respondent’s counsel are irrelevant in this case. The first claim of the Appellant has been reproduced elsewhere in this judgment. Even at the risk of repetition, I wish to reproduce the first claim as follows:-
“A declaration that the claimant is entitled to all that piece or parcel of land at Oke Sunna (Gbakan) village bounded in the North by the Nda Village land and in the South with Adewole Housing Estate, in East Budo Iya village and the West Adewole Housing Estate situate, lying and being as Adewole Area, Ilorin, Kwara State”.
Clearly this item of claim has put the title of the Appellant in issue. It must be decided before other declaration will follow. The lower court was justified when it considered the question of whether the Appellant had led sufficient evidence in prove of his title.
The averment in paragraph 12 and 13 of the statement of claim are to the effect that the Appellant was fraudulently lured into belief that the Respondent had power under the law to acquire the Appellant’s family land and the Appellant ignorantly applied for release of land.
Fraud as alleged by the Appellant carries far much wider implication than impugning the truth or correctness of a document. At common law, its foundation is deceit of which the intention to misled and a false representation are material. In equity it is infraction of fair hearing. One of the most fundamental rules about pleading must contain precise but full allegation of facts and circumstances with all necessary particulars, leading to the necessary inference that the fraud was the cause of the lose complained of. See Ojibah v. Ojibah (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt.191) 296 @ 310 paragraphs B – C; Ex Parte Watson 21 QBD 301; Boyse v. Rossborough 6 H. L. Cas 481 @ 490.
The particulars of fraud as set out at page 7 of the record was not established before the lower court. There was no evidence that showed that the Respondent was not an agent of the Kwara State Government. Indeed the pleading did not contain precise but full allegation of facts and circumstances with all necessary particulars of fraud which are capable of leading this court to the necessary inferences that the Appellant lost anything as a result of fraud. The Appellant also alleged that he ignorantly applied for release of land. Clearly ignorance is not a defence in law. This is encapsulated in the latin phrase, “Ignorantia Juris non Execusat.”
Having failed to prove ownership of the disputed land, the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the Appellant’s case.
Accordingly the sole issue formulated by the Appellant is resolved against him and in favour of the Respondent. Accordingly this appeal is without merit and it is hereby dismissed.
Partied shall bear their respective costs.
ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A.: I read in advanced the lead judgment of my learned brother Paul A. Galinje JCA (PJ), just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached, that the appeal is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed and I abide by the consequential orders therein.
OBANDE OGBUINYA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading, in draft, the Judgment delivered by my learned brother, Paul Galinje, JCA. I endorse, completely, his reasons and conclusions therein. My noble Lord, comprehensively, settled all the nagging points embedded in the solitary issue for determination of the appeal. It is needless to duplicate his well-invested efforts. I, too, dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders contained in the reading Judgment.
Appearances
Mr. Y. L Akanbi with Mrs. Usman OmotoshoFor Appellant
AND
Mr. Tunji Ojuokaiye with Mr. Lawrence OlaFor Respondent
