AMANA YAWAI v. ISA KODELE
(2018)LCN/12055(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 25th day of September, 2018
CA/YL/5/2017
RATIO
EVIDENCE: WAYS TO PROVING TITLE TO LAND
“There are five ways of proving title to land. These are: (1) By traditional evidence; (2) By production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved; (3) By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time; (4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land (5) By 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. Establishment or proof of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. See Ayoola vs. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120 and Adesanya vs. Aderounmu (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 11) 18.” PER JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI J.C.A
LAND LAW: OWNERSHIP OF FAMILY LAND
”It is the law that if a member of a family claims ownership of family land, he must prove how he came to own the farmland to the exclusion of other members of the family. See Ewo & Ors vs. Ani & Ors (2004) LPELR 1182 SC PAGE 13 per Kutigi JSC.” PER JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI J.C.A
JUSTICES
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
AMANA YAWAI – Appellant(s)
AND
ISA KODELE – Respondent(s)
SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The Appellant commenced action against the respondent at the Grade I Area Court, Zing where he sought the assistance of Court to declare him the owner of the farmland lying and situate at Nakari Kwama village in Zing LGA. The case went into hearing with parties on both sides calling evidence of witnesses. At the close of evidence of defendant, now Respondent, the trial Court, in a considered Judgment (finding) delivered on the 1st April, 2016 found for the plaintiff, the Appellant herein, hence ownership of the land in dispute was declared in his favour. The trial Court further made an order directed on the defendant now respondent to pay to the appellant as cost the sum of N15,000. 00.
Against that Judgment and order, the respondent herein as defendant appealed to the High Court of Taraba State vide the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 4th April, 2016, that is Appeal No. TRSJ/15A/2016. See page 1 of the record of Appeal.
The High Court of Taraba State sitting as an appellate Court took arguments of counsel who adopted their respective written addresses before it on the 22nd July, 2016.
In the reserved Judgment delivered on the 30th August, 2016, the Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim at the trial Grade I Area Court, Zing.
Against this appellate decision of the High Court of Taraba State, hereinafter called the ‘Court below’, the appellant has lodged this appeal vide the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 15th November, 2016. However by the amended Notice of Appeal deemed properly filed and served on the 31st October, 2017, the appellant has appealed to this Court on 4(four) grounds. Appellant’s brief of argument had been deemed on the 31st October, 2017. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court and within time on 12th January, 2017. The appeal was heard on 25th January, 2018 as an uncontested appeal case. The respondent had not filed any brief of argument, hence the case was reserved for Judgment.
The need however arose in the course of the preparation of Judgment in this case, to invite counsel to address us on 2 (two) fundamental questions namely:-
(1) Whether appeals lie direct to the High Court of Taraba State from the decision of the Grade I Area Court, Zing in Taraba State?
(2) Whether appeals lie as of right to the Court of appeal from the appellate decision of the High Court?
Those questions, we think, are very germane to the appeal in the light of steps taken by parties or their counsel who filed:
[1] The Notice of Appeal to the High Court against the decision of Zing Area Court Grade I, and
[2] The Notice of appeal to this Court against the appellate decision of the High Court, without leave first being sought.
We invited counsel on both sides to address those points in the light of the provisions hereunder:-
[1] Section 51 of the Area Court Law (Edict) of Taraba State which provides:-
51. Any party aggrieved by a decision or order of any Area Court may appeal therefrom to the Upper Area Court having jurisdiction in the area in which such Area Court is situated.
[2] Section 241(1) (a) – (f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which provides:-
241.- (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of the right in the following cases-
(a) Final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance;
(b) Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings.
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(d) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to any person;
(e) decisions in any criminal proceedings in which the Federal High Court or a High Court has imposed a sentence of death;
(f) decisions made or given by the Federal High Court or a High Court-
(i) where the liberty of a person or the custody of an infant is concerned.
(ii) Where an injunction or the appointment of a receiver is granted or refused.
(iii) In the case of a decision determining the case of a creditor or the liability of a contributor or other officer under any enactment relating to companies in respect of misfeasance or otherwise.
(iv) In the case of a decree nisi in a matrimonial cause or a decision in an admiralty action determining liability, and
(v) in such other cases as may be prescribed by any law in force in Nigeria.?
[3] Section 242(1) of the Constitution which provides:-
‘242-(1) Subject to the provision of Section 241 of this Constitution, an appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Federal High Court or that High Court or the Court of Appeal.’
In addressing those two questions raised by the Court suo motu, learned counsel for the appellant filed his brief of argument on the 25th June, 2018. It is dated the 30th May, 2018. He adopted the said brief on the 27th June, 2018 wherein he argued, stating affirmatively, that appeals now lie direct to the High Court of Taraba State from relevant decisions of the Grade 1 Area Court by virtue of Section 3 of the Taraba State Area Courts Edict (Amendment) Law 2007, which he said has repealed Section 51 of the Area Court Law (Edict) of Taraba State.
By the repeal of that enactment, it is argued, appeals from decisions of Area Courts no longer lie to the Upper Area Court, rather appeals lie to the High Court or the Sharia Court of Appeal or to the Customary Court of Appeal, as the case may be, depending on the subject-matter of the case.
In relation to the second question, that is whether appeals lie as of right to the Court of Appeal from the appellate decision of the High Court, the learned counsel again answered the poser in the affirmative. In reference to Section 241(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) he argued that it is only when the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone that appeals can be maintained as of right whether or not it emanated from an interlocutory decision, appellate decision or decisions of the High Court sitting as a Court of First Instance, hence leave was not required. He cited the decision in Nwabueze V. Nipost (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 480, 514; Olanipekun Vs. Olanipekun (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 488, 501; Bida V. Abubakar (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 130; Dairo V. UBN Plc. (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 99 (SC); Ojo Vs. INEC (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1105) 577, 621.
He argued further stating that a valid decision of the High Court sitting on appeal will not require leave to appeal if the ground or grounds of Appeal are on issue of law alone. It has been argued that the High Court below in any case, does not have the jurisdiction to sit over the case as it did, over appeals emanating from decisions or order of an Area Court on issues relating to Customary law. This according to him is by reason of Section 3 of Taraba State Area Courts Edict (Amendment) Law, 2007.
Learned counsel for the respondent at one time put up appearance but failed to address any of the two questions raised suo motu by this Court, hence we were constrained to consider only the address or submissions made by counsel to the appellant on those issues.
I will take on the second question first that is, whether appeals lie as of right to the Court of Appeal from the appellate decision of the High Court.
I have earlier in this exercise alluded to provisions of Section 241 (1)(a)-(f) and Section 242(1) of the Constitution. It follows therefore that appeals will lie as of right to the Court of Appeal from decisions of the High Court in any of the circumstances listed in paragraphs (a)-(f) of Section 241(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Of particular relevance to our discourse is Section 241 (1)(b) of the Constitution which provides that:
‘(b) Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any Civil or Criminal Proceedings.’
Thus, irrespective of the nature of decision, whether interlocutory, final or appellate, once the ground of appeal is on issue of law alone prior leave of either the High Court or the Court of Appeal is not required before proceeding. In all other cases, appeals will lie only by way of leave of Court first sought under Section 242 (1) of the Constitution.
The appellant has appealed to this Court on 4 (four) grounds by reason of the amended Notice of Appeal dated the 30th October, 2017 and filed on the 31st October, 2017. There can be no question that grounds 2, 3 and 4 in the Notice and Grounds of Appeal all raise issues of law and by reason of which the appeal can be maintained as of right. See: Nwabueze V. Nipost (supra);Olanipekun Vs. Olanipekun (supra); Bida V. Abubakar (supra).
Where however a Notice of appeal has as a ground, the complaint that ‘Judgment is against the weight of evidence’ among other grounds, leave of either the High Court or the Court of Appeal should be sought as condition for filing a valid appeal, in that the complaint, that ‘Judgment is against weight of evidence’, is a ground of fact. See: C.P.C Vs. Lado (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1266)40 at 59; Akinlagun Vs. Oshoboja (2006) 5 SCNJ 274.
The case on hand however raises another fundamental question as regards the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court below sitting on appeal on the question whether the High Court below was right to have entertained the matter before it, the subject-matter of which is land, regulated by rules of customary law.
By reason of Section 3 of the Taraba State Area Courts Edict (Amendment) Law 2007, an enactment which repealed Section 51 of the Area Court Law of Taraba State, appeals now lie direct to the High Court or Sharia Court of Appeal or the Customary Court of Appeal of Taraba State, depending on the subject-matter of the case. Section 3 provides thus:-
3. Section 51 of the principal law is hereby amended by its complete deletion and the substitution of the following new Section 51:-
51(1) Any party aggrieved by any decision or order of an Area Court in an Islamic personal law matter may appeal there from to the Shariah Court of Appeal of the State
(2) Any party aggrieved by the decision or order of an Area Court in a customary law matter may appeal there from to the Customary Court of Appeal of the State
(3) Any party aggrieved by any decision or order of an Area Court in all other cases may appeal to the High Court of the state
Learned appellant’s counsel in his brief has argued that the High Court below lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on land matters which are regulated by rules of native law and custom or land covered by Customary right of Occupancy.
I am in total agreement with that submission of counsel by reason of Section 3 of the Taraba State Area Court Edict (Amendment) Law, 2007 referred to above. But a brief history of the facts leading to this case will put matters in better perspective.
The appellant claimed ownership of the land lying and situate at Nakari Kwama village in Zing Local Government Area. His case is that he took over from his father, the use and cultivation of the land in dispute after the demise of his father. Sometimes in the year 2015 the respondent went into the land and laid claim to the land as his own, hence the action.
The evidence of the only witness for the plaintiff at the trial Court disclosed that the land in dispute was originally the family land to which all parties to the case had equal right of use and occupation since the two of them share common heritage along with other members of the same family.
The story or evidence of the defendant’s witnesses is not different except that the land in dispute is the portion of the larger family land which had been distributed and allocated to his father Kodele for his own use. His claim is that he is entitled to the use and ownership of the portion of that land left behind by his father.
The High Court of Taraba State indeed lack jurisdiction to entertain appeals from Area Court on issues bordering on Customary Law: to wit a piece of land which is a subject of Customary right of Occupancy, is the exclusive preserve of the Customary Court of Appeal of Taraba State to handle. See: Usman Vs. Umaru (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 254) 385, 397-398. I also want to refer to Section 36(2) and 41 of the Land Use Act. Appeals arising from such decisions of the Area Court should in my view now go to the Customary Court of Appeal. See further the case of Chukwujekwu Vs. Olalere (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 221) 86, 94. The Respondent as defendant at the trial Court chose the wrong venue in my view when he filed his appeal at the High Court below against the decision of the Area Court Grade I, Zing on the facts.
This approach of the respondent deprived the High Court below from the exercise of jurisdiction over the matter as it did, hence the eventual decision or Judgment at the High Court below must be set aside as a nullity. See: Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587.
This appeal in effect, succeeds and same is allowed. The Judgment of the High Court of Taraba State delivered on the 30th August, 2016 in Appeal No. TRSJ/15A/16 is hereby set aside.
Cost in the sum of N50, 000. 00 is assessed against the respondent and for the appellant
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgment, in this appeal, just delivered by my learned Brother, Saidu Tanko Husaini, JCA.
I am at one with His Lordship’s line of reasoning and the conclusion reached therein that this appeal is meritorious and ought to be allowed.
I also allow the appeal for the reasons given in the said leading judgment which I adopt as mine and abide by the consequential orders made therein, inclusive of that of costs.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: This appeal is against the judgment delivered on 30th August, 2016 in the High Court of Taraba State in the Jalingo Judicial Division holden at Zing sitting on appeal in Appeal No. TRSJ/15A/16 coram Adi J., and Yakubu J., allowing the appeal of the Respondent who was Defendant at the Grade 1, Area Court, Zing (the trial Court).
The claim of the Appellant who was the Plaintiff against the Respondent who was the Defendant was for a declaration of title to a farmland lying and situate at Nakari Kwana Village in Zing Local Government Area.
The Respondent denied the claim of the Appellant and stated in response that he was more entitled to the farmland than the Appellant.
The facts of case on the evidence of the only witness called by the Appellant are very short. According to the witness, the Appellant is his younger brother while the Respondent is his son. The witness and both parties belong to the same family; and both parties have equal right to the use of the land in dispute.
In his defence, the Respondent called three witnesses. According to the DW1, the father of the Appellant being the oldest member of the family represented the entire family when there was a dispute on the land with another person. DW2 asserted that the land in dispute is family land. But the DW3 stated that the land belongs to the Respondent because the Respondent?s late father had a land dispute with someone and the land was divided between him and the person with whom he had the land dispute.
After hearing evidence of witnesses called by both parties, the trial Court visited the locus in quo. After considering the evidence before it, the trial Court entered judgment in favour of the Appellant. The Respondent appealed to the High Court (Court below).
The Court below allowed the appealed of the Respondent, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. The Court below declared Respondent entitled to the farmland in dispute.
The appellant approached this Court by an original notice of appeal dated and filed 15th November, 2016 with the leave of the Court below granted 3rd November, 2016. On 31st October, 2017, the Appellant was granted leave by this Court to amend the notice of appeal. The amended notice of appeal dated 30th October, 2017 filed 31st October, 2017 and deemed duly filed and served the same day contains four grounds of appeal.
From the four grounds of appeal, the Appellant presented the following three issues for determination:
1. Whether regard being heard (sic) to the evidence adduced and the entire circumstances of this case, the High Court of Justice of Taraba State sitting in its appellate jurisdiction was right to have held that Defendant/Respondent has proved his counter claim. (this issue is distilled from ground two)
2. Whether the High Court of Justice of Taraba State sitting in its appellate jurisdiction was right to have declared title of the land in question to the Defendant/Respondent. (this issue is distilled from ground three)
3. Whether the High Court of Justice of Taraba State properly evaluated the evidence before it and should the answer be in the negative, whether the findings resulting from such improper evaluation is not perverse? (Encompassing ground four)
The Respondent did not file any brief.
The Court invited both parties to address it on whether appeals lie as of right from the decision of the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal and whether appeals from the decisions of Area Courts lie direct to the High Court without passing through the Upper Area Court.
On both issues, the Appellant filed a written address dated 30th May, 2018 filed on 25th June, 2018 but deemed duly filed and served on 25th June 2018.
Respondent again did not address the Court on these issues.
I will determine all three issues together as they more or less constitute only an issue for determination in the appeal.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that a counterclaim is an independent action and therefore must be separately and distinctly proved by the counterclaimant. The Court was referred to Tatu vs. Estate of late Alhaji I. Adamu (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1490) 304 at 400.
Learned counsel submitted that for a party to succeed in an action for declaration of title to a piece of land, he must prove this through any one of the five ways of proving title to land recognised by law. He referred the Court to Ewo vs. Ani (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 861) at 628 ? 629.
The Respondent, it was contended, relied on traditional history to prove his title to the land in dispute. He was expected, it was submitted, to plead the names of his ancestors who founded the land and the names of those after him to whom the land devolved up to the last successor without leaving any gap. The Court was referred to Awodi vs. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 576 at 613, Addah vs. Ubandawaki (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 458) 325 at 360, Akanbi vs. Salawu (2002) FWLR (Pt. 178) 1066 at 1074, Nwokorobia vs. Nwogu (2009) All FWLR (PT. 476) 1808 at 1855, Gbadamosi vs. Okege (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1233) 175 at 199 ? 2000, Kalio & Ors vs. Woluchem & Anor (1980) – 1998) Vol. 2 SCJL 198 at 200 and Falomo vs. Onakanmi (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 298) 1243 at 1263 – 1264.
The Respondent, it was submitted, never led evidence as to who founded the land, how the land was founded and the particulars of the intervening owners. It was submitted that the only basis on which the Respondent is claiming the land is that his father once had a dispute over the land with Jessangale, a third party sometimes in 1996 and the land was shared between his father and the said Jessangale.
On issue 2, it was submitted that the evidence of DW2 showed that the land in dispute is family land.
It was submitted that where parties accept as in this case that the land is family land or that if the Court finds that the land is family land, the burden is on the person who asserts that the land belongs to him to show how he became the exclusive owner. The Court was referred to Ajuwon vs. Akanni (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 316) 182, Ndukwe vs. Acha (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 25, Adesanya vs. Otuewu (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 414 and Olodo vs. Josiah (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 653 at 687.
On the above authorities maintained learned counsel, the only way a party such as the Respondent who claims exclusive ownership of family land can discharge this heavy burden placed on him by law is to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the family land has been partitioned and each of the members allocated his portion of the family land
The Respondent, it was submitted, did not lead evidence to show that the land was partitioned among members of the family and each member allocated his own portion.
On issue 3, it was submitted that the findings of the Court below are perverse.
The Court should therefore intervene.
As pointed out earlier in the judgment, the appellant was granted leave on 3rd November, 2016 by the Court below to appeal to this Court on grounds of mixed law and facts. That in my view settles issue 1 raised by this Court suo motu.
On the issue of whether an appeal can go directly from the Area Court to the High Court without first going to the Upper Area Court, the Court was referred to Section 3 of the Taraba State Area Courts Edict (Amendment) Law 2007 which repealed Section 51 of Taraba State Area Courts Edict Vol. 1 Cap 51 Laws of Taraba State 1997.
It was submitted that by virtue of the amendment appeals from decisions of Area Courts no longer lie from those Courts to the Upper Area Court. Rather they lie before either the High Court, Shariah Court of Appeal or the Customary Court of Appeal depending on the subject matter.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that this appeal which borders on question of customary law, that is to say, a piece of land which is subject of customary right of occupancy ought to have been heard by the Customary Court of Appeal instead of the High Court.
Section 3 of the Taraba State Area Courts Edict (Amendment) Law, 2007 provides as follows:
3. Section 51 of the Principal Law is hereby amended by its complete deletion and the substitution of the following new Section 51:-
51 (1) Any party aggrieved by any decision or order of an Area Court in an Islamic Personal Law Law matter may appeal therefrom to the Shariah Court of Appeal of the State.
(2) Any party aggrieved by the decision or order of an Area Court in a customary law matter may appeal therefrom to the Customary Court of Appeal of the State.
(3) Any party aggrieved by any decision or order of an Area Court in all other cases may appeal to the High Court of the state.
My learned brother Husaini JCA agrees with the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that by the above provision of the law, the appeal from the decision of the Grade 1, Area Court, Zing in this matter lay to the Customary Court of Appeal. In my view nothing could be farther from the position of the law. It is the law that a High Court of a State has jurisdiction on matters involving customary right of occupancy. See Adisa vs. Oyinwola (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 116 and Sanni vs. Ademiluyi (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 807) 381 both decisions of the Supreme Court. The fact that the land is subject of customary right of occupancy as learned counsel for the Appellant contended did not deprive the Court below of the jurisdiction conferred on it by Section 51(3) of the Area Courts Amendment Law of 2007 reproduced above. It is not surprising therefore that the trial Court informed both parties that any of them who was dissatisfied with its judgment was at liberty to appeal to the High Court. It is equally not surprising that the Respondent prosecuted the appeal in the Court below without the Appellant protesting the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the appeal.
There is therefore no basis for the argument of the Appellant’s counsel now that the appeal which was in respect of a claim for title to a farmland ought to have been entertained by the Customary Court of Appeal of Taraba State rather than the High Court.
It is for the foregoing reason that I respectfully disagree with my learned brother Husaini JCA that the appeal lay from the Area Court, Grade 1, Zing to the Customary Court of Appeal.
As the appeal was properly before the Court below, I now consider the appeal to this Court from the decision of the lower Court on the merits.
There are five ways of proving title to land. These are: (1) By traditional evidence; (2) By production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved; (3) By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time; (4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land (5) By 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. Establishment or proof of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. See Ayoola vs. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120 and Adesanya vs. Aderounmu (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 11) 18.
From the evidence adduced by the Appellant both parties have the right to use the land in dispute. On this evidence, I agree entirely with learned counsel for the Appellant that the land is family land. This was made clearer by the evidence of the DW2 who stated in very clear terms that the land is family land.
It is the law that if a member of a family claims ownership of family land, he must prove how he came to own the farmland to the exclusion of other members of the family. See Ewo & Ors vs. Ani & Ors (2004) LPELR 1182 SC PAGE 13 per Kutigi JSC.
The Appellant on the evidence led through a lone witness failed to show that the land belongs to him to the exclusion of other members of the family. Rather the witness stated in no uncertain terms that the Respondent has an equal right to the use of the land in dispute.
On this evidence, the claim of the Appellant ought to have been dismissed by the trial Court.
The Respondent was declared owner of the land by the Court below.
Let me point out straight away that the Respondent did not counterclaim. He merely stated that he was more entitled to the land than the Appellant. This cannot amount to a counterclaim. I am not unmindful of the fact that the action was before an Area Court. The fact that the action was before an Area Court did not mean that the Court would read into the action what a party did not say. The Respondent did not say he was claiming/counterclaiming the land in dispute.
Assuming that the Respondent counterclaimed, he would still not be entitled to the declaration of title made in his favour by the Court below on the evidence led by him. As I pointed out earlier DW2 called by him stated in no uncertain terms that the land in dispute was family land. The Respondent failed to prove how he came to own the land in dispute to the exclusion of other members of the family.
In the circumstances, the three issues presented by the Appellant for determination are resolved against the Respondent and in favour of the Appellant.
The appeal is allowed.
The judgment of the Court below in Appeal No. TRSJ/15A/16 Isa Kodele vs. Amana Yawai is hereby set aside.
For the reasons contained in the judgment, the claim of the Appellant at the trial Court is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their respective costs of this appeal.
Appearances:
L. P. Mahanan, Esq.For Appellant(s)
No legal representationFor Respondent(s)
