ALHAJI SADI ABDULAZIZ & ANOR v. ALHAJI BELLO GARBA (2019)

ALHAJI SADI ABDULAZIZ & ANOR v. ALHAJI BELLO GARBA

(2019)LCN/13262(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 16th day of May, 2019

CA/A/36/2015

RATIO

EVIDENCE: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS THE BEST EVIDENCE

The law is settled that documentary evidence is the best evidence. It is therefore beyond dispute that from Exhibit A, there existed a tenancy agreement between the Respondent and the 1st Appellant. This much the 1st Appellant admitted that he signed the said Exhibit A, and facts admitted need no further proof. See
BAALO v. FRN (2016) LPELR 40500 (SC);
DURU & ORS v. DURU & ORS (2017) LPELR 42490 (CA);
NDUKWE v. LPDC & ANOR (2017) LPELR 1979 (SC).PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

AGREEMENTS: PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THEIR AGREEMENTS

It is also the law that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement. See A. G RIVERS V. A. G. AKWA IBOM (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31, where it was held inter alia as follows:
‘Where parties have entered into a contract or an agreement voluntarily and there is nothing to show that same was obtained by fraud, mistake, deception or misrepresentation, they are bound by the provisions or terms of the contract or agreement. This is because a party cannot ordinarily resile from a contract or agreement just because he later found that the conditions of the contract or agreement are not favourable to him, This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement. Moreover, a Court of law must respect the sanctity of the agreement reached by the parties, where they are in consensus ad idem as regards the terms and conditions freely and voluntarily agreed upon by them and expressed in a written form.”PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

LAND LAW: IF THE LOCATION OF A LAND IS KNOWN TO BOTH PARTIES, THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT NAMES ARE ASCRIBED TO THE LANDS IS IMMATERIAL

In AKINYEMI v. OJO (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 588) PAGE 984 AT 985, it was held that where parties by the evidence adduced are ad idem on the identity of the land in dispute, the fact that different names are ascribed to the land or that the area where it is located is called by different names, is immaterial as long as parties are referring to the same parcel of land.”PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

APPEAL: APPELLATE COURTS ARE NORMALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO INTERFERE IN JOB DONE BY THE TRIAL COURTS
Where a trial Court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, as in the instant case, an appellate Court is enjoined not to substitute its own views for the views of the Trial Court. See:
EZUKWU V. UKACHUKWU (2004) 17 NWLR PT.902 PAGE 227;
AJERO V. UGORJI (1999) 10 NWLR PT.621 PAGE 1;
OKEKE V. AGBODIKE (1999) 14 NWLR PT.638 PAGE 215;
ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR PT.111 PAGE 511.PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

WHEN A FACT IS PLEADED BY A PLAINTIFF AND ADMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT

It is trite law that when a fact is pleaded by the Plaintiff and admitted by the Defendant, evidence on the admitted fact is irrelevant and unnecessary.
See ESOHO V. ASUQUO (2007) ALL FWLR PT.359 PAGE 355;
BUNGE V. GOV., RIVERS STATE (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.995) PAGE 573.PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

RECOVERY OF PREMISES: ONLY A 7 DAYS NOTICE OF OWENERS INTENTION IS REQUIRED TO RECOVER PREMISES FROM A FIXED TERM TENANCY
All that a landlord is required to do is to recover possession in a fixed term tenancy, as in the instant case, is to serve on the tenant seven days notice of owner’s intention to apply to Court to recover possession. See IHENACHO v. UZOCHUKWU (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 487) 257. PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

ABDU ABOKI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. ALHAJI SADI ABDULAZIZ
2. U.B.S.S GROUP LIMITED – Appellant(s)

AND

ALHAJI BELLO GARBA – Respondent(s)

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By an Amended Writ of Summons filed on the 4th of March 2013, the Respondent herein, as Plaintiff at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, holden at Abuja, (hereafter referred to as the Trial Court), instituted an action against the Appellants herein as Defendants, claiming the following reliefs:
1.An Order vacating the 1st Defendant from Plot 11455 Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II Abuja and grant immediate possession to the Plaintiff.
2. An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to restore the property to its original state of residential structure.
3. Arrears of rent from 19th November 2009 to 14th January 2010 at the sum of Three Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Six Naira (N355, 196.00) only.
4. Mesne profit of Six Hundred and Sixty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Six Naira, Sixty Six Kobo (N666, 666.66) only per month until vacant possession is delivered to the Plaintiff
5. Cost of this suit.
The 2nd Appellant was, by an order of the Trial Court made on the 13th of February,

2013, joined as a party to the suit and pleadings were filed and exchanged. Issues being joined, the matter proceeded to trial. The Respondent testified for himself and tendered some exhibits, including some exhibits tendered on behalf of the Appellants, after the Respondent was recalled by an order of the Trial Court. The Appellants thereafter called two witnesses who testified on their behalf.
The story of the Respondent as Plaintiff, is that sometime in 2008, there was a tenancy relationship that existed between him, and the 1st Appellant, in respect of Plot 1145B Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja which tenancy according to him, by agreement, commenced on the 19th of November 2008 at the rent of Four Million Naira (N4, 000,000.00) only and elapsed by effluxion of time on the 18th of November 2009. According to him, it was further agreed that the 1st Appellant, in the event the tenancy is not going to be renewed, he shall be given three months notice by the Respondent and he shall commence restoration of the property to its prior status so as to deliver intact possession of the premises on the 18th of November 2009. He

stated that the tenancy expired since the 18th of November 2009 and the 1st Appellant has refused to renew or deliver up possession of the premises after the requisite notices served on him in line with the Tenancy Agreement.

The 1st Appellant however denied the Respondent’s claim. It is his story that the Respondent is not the Landlord of Plot 1145B, Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja which he sought to recover possession, but the Respondent is the Landlord of Plot 1146B, and that the 1st Appellant has never been in possession of Plot 1145B Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja. According to him, the Respondent’s tenant is the 2nd Appellant and the 2nd Appellant had been paying the Respondent rent in respect of Plot 1146B Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja and not Plot 1145B Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja. He maintained that no notice of termination of the tenancy was served on either the 1st Appellant or the 2nd Appellant.

At the close of trial, the Trial Court in its judgment delivered on the 20th of November 2014, entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.
The Appellants, dissatisfied with the judgment, appealed to this Court vide a

Notice of Appeal filed on the 24th of November 2014, upon Four Grounds, as contained at pages 401 to 404 of the Record of Appeal.

Parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument, in line with the extant Rules of this Court, which they adopted and relied on in support of their various positions, when the appeal came up for hearing on the 28th of March 2019.

From the four grounds of appeal, Yakubu Suleiman Esq, who settled the Appellants’ Brief of Argument dated and filed on the 19th of January 2018, formulated a sole issue for this Court’s determination to wit:
“Whether from the facts and circumstances of this appeal particularly as it relates to the admission of the Plaintiff PWI now Respondent, under cross examination that his tenant is the 2nd Defendant, now 2nd Appellant, the Respondent can be said to have established his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought?”

E. Maji Esq., who settled the Respondent’s brief of argument dated and filed on the 22nd of March 2018 but deemed properly filed and served on the 24th of October 2018, also distilled a sole issue for determination, that is:

“Whether from the preponderance of evidence there exists a tenancy relationship between the 1st Appellant and the Respondent to entitle the Respondent to the reliefs granted?”

The sole issue raised by counsel on both sides is the same in purport, though couched differently. I adopt the sole issue formulated by the Respondent, that is, “Whether from the preponderance of evidence, there exists a tenancy relationship between the 1st Appellant and the Respondent to entitle the Respondent to the reliefs granted?”

It is submitted for the Appellants that the Respondent herein failed to establish his case at the trial, as was erroneously held by the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that from the Record of Appeal, particularly the proceedings of the 3rd of April 2012, at pages 333 to 335 of the Record, one is left in no doubt that the Respondent did not establish his claims at the trial.

It is the view of learned counsel for the Appellants that going by Exhibits X, X1, X2, X3 and X4, at pages 108-114, 122-124 of the Record, what

can be reasonably deduced from the testimony of the Respondent is that he (the Respondent), is the Landlord of the said property which he rented to the 2nd Appellant, and not the 1st Appellant, as the exhibits point to the fact that the agreements are between the Respondent and the 2nd Appellant and that the 2nd Appellant has been paying rent to the Respondent.

He maintained that the 2nd Appellant, being a yearly tenant of the Respondent was entitled to the requisite notices as required by law, before the tenancy can be determined. He placed reliance on the case of AYINKE STORES LTD v. ADEBOGUN (2013) ALL FWLR (PT 682) 1797.

Learned counsel for the Appellants posited that the Respondent, having admitted during cross examination, the contents of Exhibits X and Xl, as the agreement he (the Respondent), entered into with the 2nd Appellant in respect of the property in issue, it then behooved the Respondent to explain

with credible evidence why Exhibits X and X1 bears Plot 1146B and Exhibit A bears Plot 1145B. He argued that evidence extracted during cross is the best form of evidence, and is a formidable tool in the hands of a diligent and skilful counsel, which the Courts can make use of. Reliance was placed on the case of BORISHADE v. NATIONAL BANK (2007) NWLR (PT 1015) 217 at 237.

It is his view that assuming but without conceding that the 1st Appellant was a tenant of the Respondent, as contended by the Respondent, Exhibits C and D, (the notices) at pages 26 and 27 of the Record, were invalid, having been issued by the Respondent’s Solicitors, and there is nothing on record to show that the notices were issued with the written authorization of the landlord and therefore cannot determine any tenancy. He cited and relied on the case of AYINKE STORES LTD v. ADEBOGUN supra, at pages 1087 to 1088.
On the issue of mesne profits, it is submitted for the Appellants that there is no scintilla of evidence before the Trial Court to show how the Respondent arrived at the amount claimed as arrears of rent and

mesne profits and the failure of the Respondent to show how he arrived at the sum of Three Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Six Naira (N355, 196.00), as arrears of rent, and Six Hundred and Sixty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Six Naira, Sixty Six Kobo (N666,666.66) only as mesne profit, is very fatal to his case.

In conclusion, this Court is urged to resolve this sole issue in favour of the Appellant, allow the appeal, and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.

In response, it is submitted for the Respondent that the Trial Court was right when it held that the Respondent was entitled to the reliefs granted.

Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the Record of Appeal, particularly pages 390-396, lay to rest the irresistibility of the conclusion that the tenancy relationship, subject matter of this appeal, subsisted between the 1st Appellant and the Respondent. He invited this Court’s attention to Exhibit B, at page 24 of the Record, and submitted that the said Exhibit B which was the 1st Appellant’s written admission of the tenancy, further explained the relationship of the 1st

Appellant and the Respondent. He cited also the case of JOSEPH MANGTUP DIN v. AFRICAN NEWSPAPER OF NIG LTD (1990) 3 NWLR (PT 139) 292.

It is his view that a tenancy relationship can be written or oral but where parties reduce their relationship into a written form, they are bound by it. He referred this Court to Exhibits A and B at pages 13-20, and 24 of the Record, and maintained that the relationship between the 1st Appellant and the Respondent, having been codified in writing and admitted in evidence at the trial, the parties are bound by it. The following cases were relied on:
CHITRA K & W MAN CO LTD v. AKINGBADE (2016) 4-5 MJSC (PT 70) PARA D-G;
NIGERGATE LTD v. NIGER STATE (2005) 1 NWLR (PT 907) 324.

Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the arguments canvassed by the Appellants’ Counsel in pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Appellants’ brief of argument merely orchestrate the position of oral testimony against documentary evidence. He submitted that oral evidence cannot displace documentary evidence. Reliance was placed on the case of OLUBODUN v. LAWAL (2008) 9 MJSC 1 at 53.

It is the opinion of learned counsel for the Respondent that the testimony of the Respondent was unambiguous as to whom he entered the tenancy agreement (Exhibit A) with, and this was corroborated by the testimony of DWI and DW2, under cross examination. He invited this Court’s attention to pages 197-216, and 363 of the Record.

On whether the notice issued to the Appellants was valid, it is submitted for the Respondent that the notice was valid and rightly emanated. He referred this Court to the case of IHENACHO v. UZOCHUKWU (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 487) 257 on the procedure a landlord who is desirous of recovering possession of his premises will follow, and submitted that the Respondent herein had fulfilled the requirements.
He maintained that the locus of the Respondent’s counsel to issue the notices was never impugned at the trial and it therefore remained valid by virtue of the Doctrine of General Agent conveyed in the preamble of the notices. He argued further that the 1st Appellant needed no notice to quit, as Exhibit A, itself is a notice

terminable on a date certain, all he needed to evict him is a notice of owner’s intention to recover possession, which was duly served. He relied on the cases of:
ADEWUNMI v. PLASTEX INDUSTRIES LTD (1986) NWLR (32) 767;
TINUOLU v. OKON (1966) 2 ALL NLR 188.

On the issue of mesne profits, learned counsel for the Respondent stated that mesne profits are awarded for rents, where, as in the instant case, the tenant remains in possession after the expiration of the tenancy agreement and the arrears of rent stems from the period before the suit is filed in Court. Reliance was placed on the cases of:
AYINKE v. LAWAL (1994) 7 NWLR (PT 356) 265;
ODUYE v. NIGERIA AIRWAYS LTD (1987) 2 NWLR (PT 55) 126.

In conclusion, this Court is urged to resolve the sole issue against the Appellants; dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the Trial Court.

The first point to be considered is whether it is the 2nd Appellant and not the 1st Appellant that is the tenant of the Respondent in circumstances of this case.

By Paragraphs 1-3 of the Respondent’s amended statement of claim, he averred thus:

1. The Plaintiff is the Landlord of Plot 11458 Aminu Kano Crescent Wuse II, Abuja and at all time material to this suit, stays and resides in the Federal Capital Territory in the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The 1st Defendant at all time material to this suit was a tenant whose tenancy has elapsed and in possession of Plot 1145B Aminu Kano Crescent Wuse II, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court.
3. The Plaintiff avers that he entered into a yearly tenancy relationship with the 1st Defendant on 19th November 2008 which tenancy by agreement commenced on 19th November 2008 at the rent of Four Million Naira (N4, 000,000.00) only and elapse by effluxion of time on the 18th of November 2009. A copy of the tenancy agreement shall be relied upon at the trial.

The Tenancy agreement relied upon by the Respondent at paragraph 3 above was admitted in evidence as Exhibit A.
At page 14 of the Record, the Tenancy Agreement reads thus:
“THIS TENANCY AGREEMENT is made this 18th day of November 2008 BETWEEN ALHAJI BELLO GARBA of Plot No 4 Kandi Close Wuse II Abuja (hereinafter known as the

“LANDLORD” which expression shall where the context so admits include its representatives and assigns) of the one part, AND ALHAJI SADI ABDUL AZIZ OF PLOT 1145B Aminu Kano Cresecent Wuse II, Abuja (hereinafter known as the “TENANT”, which expression shall were the context so admits include his assigns and successors-in-title), of the other part.
WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Landlord lets and the tenant takes all that property at Plot 1145B situate at Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja (hereinafter called the “Demised Premises, with full rights and liberty for the tenant to use the same for RESIDENTIAL purpose and to hold unto the tenancy from the 19th of November 2008 for a term of ONE Year at an annual rent of N4,000,000.00 net of tax, the sum of FOUR MILLION NAIRA only, representing One (1) Year rent commencing from the 19th day of November 2008 to the 18th day of November 2009 and the said sum the Tenant has paid (the Receipt whereof the Landlord hereby acknowledges)”

The Appellants herein have however averred that the tenant of the Respondent is the 2nd Appellant, and not the 1st

Appellant. (See Paragraphs 1-5 of the Appellants’ Joint Statement of Defence, at page 256 of the Record.)

In proof of this assertion, they tendered Exhibits X, X1, X2, X3, and X4. I have perused the said exhibits at pages 107 to 125 of the Record. They are evidence of a Tenancy Agreement between the Respondent and the 2nd Appellant for the period between 2004 and 2008; and cheques made out to the Respondent by the 2nd Appellant, for the stated period of time, which lends credence to the testimony of the Respondent under cross examination that “up to 2008, the tenancy relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company UBSS, has been ongoing” (See page 335 of the Record).

That being the case, the said exhibits are of no moment in the instant case, as they have expired. What is relevant before this Court are Exhibits A, and Exhibit X4. Exhibit A, is the Tenancy Agreement between the Respondent and the 1st Appellant, for which payment was made, vide Exhibit X4, issued on the 13th of November 2008, for the sum of N4 Million in line with the tenancy agreement for a fixed term, beginning

from 19th November 2008, to 18th November 2009.

agreement are not favourable to him, This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement. Moreover, a Court of law must respect the sanctity of the agreement reached by the parties, where they are in consensus ad idem as regards the terms and conditions freely and voluntarily agreed upon by them and expressed in a written form.”
Having willfully signed and executed Exhibit A, the 1st Appellant cannot be heard to say that he is not the tenant of the Respondent, as the law is settled that when a transaction is reduced into writing no oral testimony is admissible to alter, vary or change the contents of the documents. See SECTION 128 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011.

The next point raised here is the disparity in the number of the Plot in issue, whether 1145B or 1146B. The Trial Court, in resolving this issue, held inter alia thus, at page 397 of the Record:
“Coming to the issue, whether the premises in dispute is Plot 1145B and not Plot 1146B, and whether the subject matter is not one and the same thing, as referred to by both parties, the Plaintiff herein described the property as Plot 1145

B, while the Defendants disputed that and called it 11468. it is also to be noted that in Exhibits A and D, the property is described as Plot 1145 B, and in Exhibits B and E, the property is described as Plot 11468 and finally in Exhibits X, X1 and Z, the property is described as Plot 1146B, including the finding at the locus in quo. The cardinal point which makes the property easily describable to my mind, is Kandi Close, Aminu Kano Crescent, WUSE II Abuja and the description of the property to me, should not be made a subject of litigation, in so far as it can easily be identified…To me therefore, the premises in dispute are one and the same thing, variously described by both the Plaintiff and the Defendants. In AKINYEMI v. OJO (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 588) PAGE 984 AT 985, it was held that where parties by the evidence adduced are ad idem on the identity of the land in dispute, the fact that different names are ascribed to the land or that the area where it is located is called by different names, is immaterial as long as parties are referring to the same parcel of land.”
These finding by the Trial Court, are to

my mind unassailable, more so, as the Appellants witness admitted under cross examination that the number changed from 1146B, as indicated at the gate. (See page 351 of the Record.) I also hasten to add that the 1st Appellant, who in Exhibit B admitted to being the tenant of the Respondent, cannot turn around to claim that he is not a tenant, or that the property is not the same. See Exhibit B, page 24 of the Record.
Where a trial Court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, as in the instant case, an appellate Court is enjoined not to substitute its own views for the views of the Trial Court. See:
EZUKWU V. UKACHUKWU (2004) 17 NWLR PT.902 PAGE 227;
AJERO V. UGORJI (1999) 10 NWLR PT.621 PAGE 1;
OKEKE V. AGBODIKE (1999) 14 NWLR PT.638 PAGE 215;
ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR PT.111 PAGE 511.
The irrefutable conclusion based on the foregoing, is that the identity of the property is not in issue, as rightly held by the Trial Court.

On whether the Notices to Quit, Exhibits C and D, are valid in law to determine the tenancy agreement and an action for recovery of premises, the law is settled that in a

tenancy relationship, the position of the law is that the nature of a tenancy determines the length of notice to be given before a Landlord can apply for the recovery of the demised.
At Paragraph 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the Respondent averred thus:
“The Plaintiff avers that he entered into a yearly tenancy relationship with the 1st Defendant on 19th November 2008 which tenancy by agreement commenced on 19th November 2008 at the rent of Four Million Naira (N4,000,000.00) only and elapse by effluxion of time on the 18th of November 2009. A copy of the tenancy agreement shall be relied upon at the trial.”
In their Joint Statement of Defence, the Appellant averred as follows at Paragraph 21
“The Defendants states- that the 2nd Defendant also paid to the Plaintiff, the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira), N3,500,000,00 (Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira), N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira) in 2006 – 2007, 2007 to 2008, and 2008 to 2009 respectively as annual rents of the premises”
These assertions are in

tandem with Exhibit A, which clearly shows that the Tenancy Agreement between the Respondent and the 1st Appellant was for the period between 19th November 2008 to 18th November 2009.
It is trite law that when a fact is pleaded by the Plaintiff and admitted by the Defendant, evidence on the admitted fact is irrelevant and unnecessary.
See ESOHO V. ASUQUO (2007) ALL FWLR PT.359 PAGE 355;
BUNGE V. GOV., RIVERS STATE (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.995) PAGE 573.
I am in no doubt that the tenancy in question was for a fixed term with effect from 19/11/2008 to 18/11/2009.
The position of the law is that a lease or tenancy for a fixed term automatically determines when the fixed term expires. Quit Notice is usually obviated in the case of a fixed tenancy since the term of expiration is normally known; unlike periodic tenancies that continues automatically from period to period until it is determined by a notice to quit.
All that a landlord is required to do is to recover possession in a fixed term tenancy, as in the instant case, is to serve on the tenant seven days notice of owner’s

intention to apply to Court to recover possession. See IHENACHO v. UZOCHUKWU (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 487) 257
In the instant case, it is on record that the Respondent served Exhibit ‘C’ (i.e. the Respondent solicitor’s letter to the effect that the 1st Appellant should indicate his interest in renewing the premises) and Exhibit ‘D’ (i.e. seven days notice of owner’s intention to apply to recover possession), on the Appellants.
I am of the opinion that Exhibit ‘C’ is not required in the instant case whilst Exhibit ‘D’ has satisfied the legal requirement of valid notices to be issued before an action for recovery of possession can be maintained.

I therefore resolve the sole issue raised in this appeal against the Appellants.

In the final analysis, this appeal is unmeritorious and it is hereby dismissed.

The judgment of the Trial Court delivered on the 20th of November 2010, is hereby affirmed.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I agree.

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: My learned brother ABDU ABOKI, JCA.

afforded me the opportunity of reading before today a draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered.
I adopt the judgment as mine with nothing further to add.

Appearances:

E. Maji For Appellant(s)

Suleman Yakubu, with him, Abdulrazak Aiyedun For Respondent(s)

Appearances

E. Maji For Appellant

AND

Suleman Yakubu, with him, Abdulrazak Aiyedun For Respondent