ALHAJI RASAQ ADISA OYEBANJI v. ALHAJI SALAWU AKINLOYE AKINLEYE
(2010)LCN/3735(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 23rd day of April, 2010
CA/I/93/06
RATIO
LAND LAW: WAYS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND
The Apex court has settled the five ways in which ownership of land may be proved by a plaintiff, in the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227.
The five ways are:-
(a) By traditional evidence.
(b) By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed.
(c) By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership.
(d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment.
(e) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
The five ways need not be proved; anyone of the above would be enough. In the present case where the Appellant claimed through purchase from Dada Section of the family, the burden is on him to prove same through documentary or oral evidence. PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: SALE OF FAMILY LAND; HOW IS A VALID SALE OF FAMILY LAND CONCLUDED
a valid sale of family land is concluded by not only handing over of the purchase money by the purchaser, there must be delivery of possession by the vendor with the requisite consent of other family members, who also witness the formality of the sale. See COLE V. FOLAMI (1956) S.C.N.L.R. 180; 1 F.S.C. 66. and KARIMU AYINLA V. SIJUWOLA (1984) 5 SC44; 1984 1 SC NLR 410. PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN TO PROVE IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
In an action for declaration of title of statutory or customary right of occupancy of land the onus is on the plaintiff to prove his title. He must rely and succeed on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the case of the defendant whose duty is merely to defend. See J. M. KODILINYE V. MBANEFO ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336 AT 337, and AWUZIE V. NKPARIAMA (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt.747) 1 at 9 – 10. PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
APPEAL: CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT
An appellate court would only interfere with the evaluation of evidence and findings of a trial court where such evaluation and findings are perverse or where it is glaring from the pleadings and evidence adduced, justice has not been done. The Appellant has not shown the learned trial judge’s findings are perverse. See SALEH V. B.O.N. LTD. (2006) 6 NWLR (1976) 316. PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ALHAJI RASAQ ADISA OYEBANJI Appellant(s)
AND
ALHAJI SALAWU AKINLOYE AKINLEYE Respondent(s)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment) The appeal is against the judgment of the Oyo State High Court, Ibadan, delivered by Hon. Justice M. A. Owoade on 8th October, 2003.
In the lower court the Plaintiff, now Appellant claimed against the defendant now Respondent as follows:-
“(a) Declaration that the Plaintiff is the person entitled to statutory/customary right of occupancy to all that four plots and parcel of land shown on the Layout Plan of Kelani Akanmu and lying being at Arinkinkin Village near Olodo along Ibadan/Iwo Road Ibadan to be clearly demarcated on a plan to be filed hereafter.
(b) N5,000:00 (Five Thousand Naira) general damages for trespass being presently committed on the said land.
(c) Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant; by himself, his servants, agents and privies from committing any further trespass on the said land.”
The learned trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety as prayed in paragraph 18(a), (b) and (c) of his statement of claim.
Dissatisfied with the judgment the plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal dated 10/11/03 on 11/11/03 in which there were four grounds of appeal.
On the Appellant’s part, the background facts are that the land in dispute formed part of Fajokun Family land, which devolved on his children after his death. The land of Fajokun was later partitioned amongst his children after his death namely Dada Section and Akintola Section. The Appellant’s contention is that the land in dispute formed part of Dada’s Section, which was sold to Alhaji Kelani Akanmu who sold the portion now in dispute to the plaintiff.
On the other hand the defendant’s case before the lower court countered that of the plaintiff in claiming that the disputed land originally belonged to “Fajokun” which on the death of Fajokun devolved on his children. The defendant also agreed that Fajokun land was partitioned between the two branches of the family, that is Dada and Akintola which Yesufu Olaniyan of Akintola’s Section sold to the Defendant shown in Exhibit ‘P1’ witnessed by both Dada and Akintola’s Section.
It was the then Defendant’s contention that the land in dispute was part of the portion partitioned to Akintola’s Section. Part of Akintola’s Section was said to have been “granted” not “sold” to Kelani Akanmu, the son of Abegbe a member of Fajokun Family and that no payment of purchase price or sale agreement was involved.
From the Appellant’s four (4) Grounds of Appeal, two (2) issues were formulated for determination by this court.
They are:-
“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in his approach to the determination of the case based on the case made out by the parties on record. (Grounds 1, 2 and 3)
2. Whether the learned trial Judge came to the right decision in the case.” (Ground 4)
On the Respondent’s part two issues were also formulated for determination of this appeal. They are:
1. “Whether the Plaintiff proved his case as required by law.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the Plaintiff’s Claim.”
On the date this appeal came up for hearing the learned counsel to the Appellant J. O. A. Ajakaiye Esq. was in court whereas J. A. O. Awomolo Esq. learned counsel to the Respondent was absent from court but, was in court on 26/5/09 when the matter last came up and adjourned to 26/1/10 for hearing. From the records of court all the briefs had been filed. By virtue of Order 17 Rule 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007. The Respondent’s counsel required no further Notice, the appeal was deemed as argued.
Mr. Ajakaiye identified and highlighted his brief of argument dated 23/6/06, filed on 26/6/06; learned counsel adopted and relied on the said brief. The two issues formulated by learned counsel were argued together, we were urged to set aside the judgment of the lower court and grant the claim of the Appellant.
In arguing his two issues, it was submitted that the parties are agreed that the land in dispute was settled upon by Fajokun, it was also agreed by the parties that the family land had been partitioned between Dada Section and Akintola Section of his children. It was submitted that the land in dispute was sold as Dada’s land to Kelani Akanmu.
Further, that the Appellant’s witnesses gave evidence of the sale of the land by members of Dada’s Section of Fajokun Family, to Kelani Akanmu who sold four (4) plots to the plaintiff.
It was the submission of learned counsel that his Exhibit ‘PS’ shows Dada’s Section of the land out of which an exact area was sold to the Plaintiff. Further that the PW3, Aminu Alagbe’s evidence (page 18-19 of the records) confirmed the sale of the land to PW1 and his evidence unchallenged under cross-examination. Also, that PW4 (the Surveyor) confirmed the contents of Exhibit ‘PS’ (pages 21 – 23 of the records). It was argued that even though DW3 confirmed the partitioning of Fajokun Family land, the witness and all other witnesses did not tender any plan even though he averred it had been filed with their statement of defence.
It was argued that the Respondent failed to tender the plan referred to in his pleadings, because if he did so, it would have been against him.
Section 149 of the Evidence Act was referred to.
The learned Appellant’s counsel was of the view that the learned trial judge was wrong to have held that Kelani did not prove the sale to him under native law and custom. Further that the quantity of land Kelani sold to the Appellant is a non issue since the defendant was unable to produce a plan showing the area partitioned to Akintola and also the defendant admitted the correctness of Exhibit ‘P5’ in his statement of defence, that what is admitted need not be proved. See ADESOLA V. ABIDOYE (2001) VOL. 2 WRN 39 AT 43.
The learned Appellant’s counsel also faulted the learned trial judge’s criticism of the traditional history of settlement of Fajokun Family land as given account of by the Plaintiff/Appellant as deficient, learned counsel contended it was a non issue since both parties agreed that Fajokun settled on the land of which the land now in dispute forms part of, also that the land was partitioned between Dada and Akintola Sections was also not disputed.
It was submitted that what was in issue is which Section is the land in dispute partitioned, that the learned trial judge should have confined his finding on this. Further, that the burden of proof of ownership of land is on the plaintiff but where there is no dispute that the land was family land, onus of proof shifts to the one who asserts that title was transferred from that family, to prove the transfer to him; reference was made to the case of OLUJINLE V. ADEAGBE (1988) 4 SCNJ 1 at 14 which learned counsel relied upon.
It was argued that the Respondent having admitted the correctness of Exhibit ‘P5’, judgment ought to have been given in favour of the plaintiff.
Learned counsel cited and relied on the case of MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91 at 94 – 98.
It was urged that where the lower court made errors in the appraisal of the facts and the application of the law to the facts, we are entitled to draw the appropriate conclusions on the facts on record before us; the following cases were cited and relied upon, OMOREGBE VS. LAWANI (1980) 3 & 4 SC 108 at 118, KASADUKU V. ATOLAGBE (1973) 5 SC 195 at 196 and LAWANI VS. DAWODU (1972) 8 & 9 SC at 115.
We were urged to allow the appeal and grant all the claims of the Appellant.
In the brief of argument filed by the learned counsel to the Respondent dated 17/6/08 filed on 18/6/08, J.A.O. Awomolo Esq. on behalf of the Respondent also argued his two issues together.
It was submitted that the Plaintiff’s averment in his statement of claim described the land in dispute as having belonged to “Fajokun Dada Family” and that the descendants of Dada then sold the land to one Alhaji Kelani Akanmu. The defendant stated the correct perspective of the matter as there being nothing like “Fajokun Dada Family” but Fajokun Family.
Further, that the Plaintiff abandoned his stand in paragraphs 1 – 8 of his statement of claim and accepted the defendant’s position as averred in the defendant’s paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Amended Statement of Defence. It was argued that the learned trial Judge was therefore right when he rejected the Appellant’s root of title as being far below the required standard. The learned Respondent’s counsel argued that Kelani Akanmu called as a witness did not give evidence in respect of the purported layout or other activities carried out on the land.
The learned counsel argued that the learned trial judge was right in preferring the evidence led by the Respondent as defendant to that of the Appellant. Further, that any weakness if at all of the Respondent’s case, did not help that of the Appellant. See SAMUEL AYO OMOJOH VS. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2008) 2 SCNJ 197, THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES ETC. AND OTHERS VS. MEDICAL HEALTH WORKERS (2008) 1 SCNJ 348 (SEE PAGE 380).
The learned counsel to the Respondent refuted the allegation by the learned Appellant’s counsel that the Respondent admitted paragraph 2 of the Appellant’s statement of claim, as an admission that the Plaintiff owned the land. Reference was made to paragraph 1 of the Amended Statement of Defence which made it clear that the land in dispute is at Arinkinkin, when read with paragraphs 3, 4, 12, 15 and 16 of the statement of defence. It was submitted in agreement with the learned trial Judge that the Plaintiff did not prove his root of title.
Contrary to the view of the learned Appellant’s counsel that the evidence of the PW3 (Aminu Alagbe) was not challenged; to the effect that they sold Dada’s land, learned counsel submitted that the entire defence challenged such sale. Reference was made to the evidence of DW3, DW4 and DW1; we were urged to reject the Appellant’s submission on this issue.
It was further argued that the case of Olujinle (supra) cited by the learned Appellant’s counsel is inapplicable to this case. It was contended that while the Appellant alleged the land in dispute was “Fajokun Dada Family” land, the Respondent averred and insisted that it belongs to Akintola Section which was sold by Yesufu Olaniyan of Akintola Section and witnessed by the entire family including Dada and Akintola Sections.
Learned counsel submitted that the onus of proof is therefore on the Appellant not the Respondent to prove that the land is of Dada Section.
Learned counsel to the Respondent argued that the entire defence is a denial of the Appellant’s case and that failure to tender the plan was due to inadvertence of counsel and not necessary, since both parties know the land in dispute very well.
Without conceding any error in the judgment appealed against, the learned counsel submitted that it is not substantial enough to warrant the success of this appeal, we were urged not to disturb the judgment.
Further, that evaluation of evidence is that of the trial court, we were urged not to disturb the findings and judgment of the learned trial judge. See OSHO V. AKPE (1998) 60 LRCN 4078. IVIENAGBOR VS. BAZUAYE(1999) 70 LRCN. SANUSI V. ADEBIYI 2256 (1997) 54 LRCN 2756. JIMOH GARUBA V. ISIAKA YAHYA (2007) 1 SCNJ 352, DALHAJI ISHA T. SOKWO V. JOSEPH DAKU KPANGBO & ORS. (2008) 2 SCNJ 36, and AGBABIAKA V. SIABU (1998) 61 LRCN 1632. We were urged to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
The learned counsel to both parties argued their two respective issues together and I shall resolve the issues in the same manner, together. The main issue therefore is, whether the learned trial judge erred in not granting the Appellant’s prayer sought in paragraphs 18(a), (b) and (c) of his statement of claim that is: a declaration of title to the statutory/customary right of occupancy in respect of all the four plots and parcel of land shown in the Plan Exhibit ‘PS’ of the plaintiff’s, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction against the Respondent, himself, his servants, agents and privies from committing further acts of trespass on the said land.
There is no dispute that the land in dispute was originally the land of Fajokun family by settlement. Fajokun exercised acts of ownership by farming, planting various crops such as palm trees, kolanut trees, cassava and maize. While the Appellant had called the family Fajakokun in their statement of claim the Respondent insisted the family is “Fajokun” and that “Fajakokun” is unknown to them. For consistency I will refer to the family as “Fajokun”. The difference in spelling does not affect the substance of the suit. In any case, the Respondent in paragraph 1 of his Amended Statement of Defence conceded that the reference by the Appellant to “Fajokun” as “Fajakokun” was erroneously done, it cannot now be made an issue. It was also agreed by both parties that on the demise of Fajokun the family land was partitioned between the two sections of the family of Fajokun descendant, his sons, Dada and Akintola. The defendant traced his ownership of the land in dispute from Akintola section of the family that sold to him but, he has not counter claimed therefore the onus is not on him to prove title. On the other hand the Appellant sought a declaration and title to the statutory/customary right of occupancy. In his pleadings before the trial court, his root of title is through purchase from the Dada Section of Fajokun family. The Apex court has settled the five ways in which ownership of land may be proved by a plaintiff, in the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227.
The five ways are:-
(a) By traditional evidence.
(b) By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed.
(c) By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership.
(d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment.
(e) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
The five ways need not be proved; anyone of the above would be enough. In the present case where the Appellant claimed through purchase from Dada Section of the family, the burden is on him to prove same through documentary or oral evidence.
From the pleadings, the land is at Arinkinkin Village, via Olodo, Iwo Road, Ibadan. Paragraph 2 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim reads:
“2. The land in dispute is at Arinkinkin village, via Olodo Iwo Road, Ibadan and demarcated on Plan No. BOP/OY/95/D6 dated 23rd October, 1995 made by Surveyor S. A. Oluwoye of Ibadan filed along with this Statement of Claim.”
While part of paragraph 1 of the Defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence and Plan reads:
“1. The Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 4, of the Statement of Claim”
The claim of the Appellant as plaintiff is therefore not in dispute as both parties by their pleadings agreed that it is as shown in Plan No. BOP/OY/95/D6 dated 23rd October, 1995, made by Surveyor S. A. Oluwoye of Ibadan tendered as Exhibit ‘P5’.
From the Appellant’s claim, he pleaded his root of title to be purchase of the land in dispute in 1978 from one Alhaji Kelani Akanmu (PW1) under customary law (supported by Exhibit ‘P2’) who claimed to have purchased from Dada Family, who were undisputedly descendants of Fajokun Family.
In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of claim, the Appellant pleaded the sale by Dada Family to PW1, and in paragraph 13 that part of the larger portion was sold to him the Appellant, he pleaded in paragraph 13 that he took possession thereafter and exercised various acts of ownership. In the evidence of the PW1 in relation to the sale to him, he testified as to having purchased the land from one Ladepo whose full names he did not know, but only knew him as the head of the Dada family. He had only heard of Fajokun family and also stated that Oladepo was the family head of Fajokun. The Appellant did not call the said Oladepo as his witness to testify, having been named by PW1as the person who gave him a written document to evidence the sale (pages 12 and 13 of the records).
As rightly found by the learned trial judge at page 65 of the records, both parties relied on traditional evidence in proof of their respective titles.
The Appellant tendered Exhibit ‘P1’ to prove that he got the land in dispute from PW1 by sale under customary law supported by Exhibit ‘P2’, the question is: has the Appellant and/or the PW1 adduced enough evidence of sale of the land in dispute to him under customary law? This could only be done by establishing the root of title of his vendor PW1 (Alhaji Kelani Akanmu), the supposed original purchaser. The Plaintiffs/Appellant’s pleadings stated that Dada Family sold to Alhaji Kelani Akanmu (PW1) who sold to him the Appellant, Exhibit ‘P1’ listed representatives of Fajokun Dada who purportedly sold to the Appellant, was tied to Exhibit ‘P2’ the survey plan, which on the face of both the dates are not reconcilable, to which the learned trial judge found defective, as the discrepancies with the dates could not be explained by the Appellant. The land was said to have been sold to the Appellant by the PW1 under Yoruba Customary Law, a valid sale of family land is concluded by not only handing over of the purchase money by the purchaser, there must be delivery of possession by the vendor with the requisite consent of other family members, who also witness the formality of the sale. See COLE V. FOLAMI (1956) S.C.N.L.R. 180; 1 F.S.C. 66. and KARIMU AYINLA V. SIJUWOLA (1984) 5 SC44; 1984 1 SC NLR 410.
In the present case the pleadings of the Appellant and the evidence of the PW1 from whom he derived his title did not show how the PW1 derived his title. The Appellant did not lead evidence to establish the root of the PW1’s title to establish not only the sale under native law and custom but a delivery of possession. Merely identifying the portion in dispute is not enough to confer title.
Mere payment is not enough. See DANIEL BASIL & ANOR. V. CHIEF LASISI FAJEBO & ANOR. (2001) 4 SCNJ 257, AJADI V. OLARENWAJU (VOL. 6, 1969-1970 N.S.C.C. 331) PAGE 338. In the present case the Plaintiff by his pleadings and Exhibits tendered failed to prove his root of title through traditional history or documents of title, and acts of ownership. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of traditional history of Fajokun Dada family, that PW1 said sold to him, and he bought from.
The documents tendered were insufficient and did not tally in terms of when they were produced. No act of ownership or long possession was established in respect of the Appellant’s root of title. Merely pleading traditional history of the land is not enough, it must be tied to the evidence before the court. No evidence was called of Fajokun Dada family members who allegedly sold the PW1 by the Appellant to confirm the pleadings of the Appellant. With the detailed averments contained in the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Defence and Plan as to the traditional history of the land in dispute, until it got to the Respondent, is totally contrary to the averments in the Appellant’s Statement of Claim, the Appellant neither thought it necessary to file a reply nor an amended statement of claim to counter or answer to the pleadings of the Respondent on traditional history of the land in dispute, which was fatal to the Appellant’s case. This would have necessitated calling evidence on his part to tally with such pleadings had he done so. It is unfortunate.
In an action for declaration of title of statutory or customary right of occupancy of land the onus is on the plaintiff to prove his title. He must rely and succeed on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the case of the defendant whose duty is merely to defend. See J. M. KODILINYE V. MBANEFO ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336 AT 337, and AWUZIE V. NKPARIAMA (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt.747) 1 at 9 – 10.
Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses does not strengthen the Appellant’s case, he did not counter claim. On the non production of the Plan pleaded by the Respondent, it is not in all cases that a dispute plan is always necessary where the area in dispute is known and agreed/admitted in the pleadings of the parties, the non production of a Plan by the Respondent in this case is not fatal to his case and is not an admission of the Appellant’s claim as argued by the learned Appellant’s counsel. The identity was not in issue, see EZEUDU V. OBIAGWU (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.21) 208 at 210 and FATALADE V. ONWOAMANAM (1990) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt.1) 442 AT 445; 2 NWLR (Pt.132) 322 at 328.
Proof of one single root of title of PW1 would have been sufficient to sustain the Appellant’s claim to declaration of title. See BALOGUN AND ORS. VS. AKANJI & ANOR. (1998) VOL 19 1 N.S.C.C. 180 and ONWUMGBUFOR V. OKOYE (1966) 1 NWLR (Pt.424) 252 at 280.
The Appellant’s case was weak, the law is that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his title clearly, emphatically satisfactorily and cogently while the defendant only defends the action, he is not to establish the plaintiff’s case. The learned trial judge was right to hold that the PW1 did not sufficiently testify to his root of title and the Appellant’s pleadings as to the traditional history was not backed up by sufficient evidence, I agree entirely with the learned trial Judge and I cannot interfere with such finding, see page 68 of the record. The Appellant’s vendor’s root of title needed to be well established for the Appellant to be entitled to the declaration sought. An appellate court would only interfere with the evaluation of evidence and findings of a trial court where such evaluation and findings are perverse or where it is glaring from the pleadings and evidence adduced, justice has not been done. The Appellant has not shown the learned trial judge’s findings are perverse. See SALEH V. B.O.N. LTD. (2006) 6 NWLR (1976) 316.
As rightly observed by the learned trial judge at page 68 of the records, the Appellant in his pleadings gave his version of the traditional history of the land in dispute, his supposed vendor and major witness PW1 said nothing about the traditional history of the Fajokun Dada who he said sold to him. DW2, the son of Oladepo who was supposed to have sold to the PW1 testified on behalf of the Respondent to the effect that there was never a sale to the PW1. The PW1 (vendor) gave no account of the traditional history of the land in dispute (which could have been tied to the pleadings and the account given therein). The learned trial judge was right in holding that the Respondent’s version of the traditional history was more probable.
No doubt, the Appellant’s title was derived from the PW1, but failed to prove how the PW1 (his vendor) got his title, tracing same to the original owner Fajokun family. The Appellant’s claim to a declaration statutory/ customary right of occupancy fails in its entirety.
In respect of the Appellant’s prayer in paragraph 18(b) where he sought for damages for trespass, it is not automatic that where the plaintiff/Appellant fails to prove his title, he is not entitled to damages.
The Appellant in his paragraphs 13 and 14 only pleaded that the land was sold to him in 1978 as well as to others named in the said paragraphs. In paragraph 14 he pleaded that he took possession and since then exercised various acts of ownership thereon, nothing more. The Appellant did not plead nor call evidence to show or establish any form of acts of ownership/possession exercised on the land, for instance did he build on the land or farm on it, and for how long? No acts of possession was pleaded or proved. The end result is that the Appellant is not entitled to damages for trespass and I so hold.
The Appellant’s issues one and two having been resolved against him the third issue also fails as this court cannot grant the perpetual injunction sought where the Appellant has failed to prove title and/or possession.
In the final analysis, the appeal fails for lacking in merit and same is hereby dismissed.
I affirm the judgment of M. A. Owoade, J. (as he then was) of Oyo State High Court, Ibadan, delivered on 8th October, 2003.
I award costs of N30,000:00 (Thirty Thousand Naira) to the Respondent.
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA J.C.A.: I read before now the judgment just delivered by my brother Chidi Nwaoma Uwa (J.C.A.) and I agree that the Appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. I dismiss same, and abide by the order contained in the said judgment including order on costs.
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.: I agree with the line of reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother C. N. Uwa J.C.A. in the Judgment just delivered.
The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. I also abide by the order on cost made therein.
Appearances
J. A. O. AjakaiyeFor Appellant
AND
J. A. O. Awomolo absent.For Respondent
