ANAYOCHUKWU NNAEMEKA & ORS v. SUNDAY NNAEMEKA & ORS (2019)

ANAYOCHUKWU NNAEMEKA & ORS v. SUNDAY NNAEMEKA & ORS

(2019)LCN/12955(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 29th day of March, 2019

CA/E/156/2015

RATIO

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION: CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WILL BE GRANTED

It is a correct statement of the law that interlocutory injunction will not be granted unless it relates to a subject matter which constitutes a triable issue in the substantive suit before the Court. In STALLION (NIG) LTD VS. E.F.C.C. (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1087) 461 @ 473-474, relied heavily upon by both sides, the Lower Court after taking argument in respect of a Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction delivered its ruling granting the Appellants’ prayers in part. The Lower Court refused that aspect of the Appellants’ prayer seeking injunction to restrain the 3rd Respondent from “…instigating the Central Bank of Nigeria from granting foreign exchange approvals for the plaintiffs’ lawful businesses…” on the ground that same was not related to any of the substantive claims before the Lower Court. The Appellants being dissatisfied with that aspect of the ruling appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal succeeded and the Court, per MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A as she then was held inter alia:
The premises for an application for an interlocutory injunction is the claim before the Court. An interlocutory injunction is usually granted with the object of keeping matters in status quo until the question at issue before the parties is determined. It is not available in respect of issues not raised in the action or proceedings before the Court when such issues or matters are directly related to the issues raised. It is therefore not available to restrain parties in respect of matters outside the issue raised in appeal before the Appeal Court. See Akibu v. Oduntan (1991) 2 NWLR(pt.171) 1 at 14 per Nnaemeka-Agu JSC; Ojukwu v. Lagos State Government (1986) 3 NWLR (pt.26) 39; Obeya Memorial Specialist Hospital v. Attorney-General (1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 60) 325; Vaswani v. Savalakh (1972) 12 SC 77 at 81; Okafor v. Nnaife (1987) 4 NWLR(pt. 64) 129 at 136 – 138; Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.112) 613 at 617.PER CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS: WHEN THE COURT WILL NOT BE COMPETENT TO HEAR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION OR RELIEF

AND

Amaka Ezeno, Esq. with him, S. A. Madubuife, Esq.For Respondent

JUSTICES

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. ANAYOCHUKWU NNAEMEKA
2. GODSON NNAEMEKA
3. CHUKWUKA NNAEMEKA Appellant(s)

AND

1. SUNDAY NNAEMEKA
2. CHUKWUNONSO NNAEMEKA
3. CHINEDU NNAEMEKA
(For themselves & on behalf of the other members of Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka family of Umubele Village, Awka except the defendants) Respondent(s)

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Ruling of the High Court of Anambra State, Awka judicial Division in Suit No. A/25/2013 delivered on the 8th day of December, 2014 Coram Iguh J (of blessed memory).

FACTS:
The parties are all members of Ernest Obiora Nnameneka family of Umubelle Village Awka. The Respondents are sons of Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka by his second wife. The 1st and 2nd Appellants are half brothers of the Respondents being sons of Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka by his first wife. The 3rd Appellant is a grandson of the said Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka begotten by his first son Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka. Both Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka and his first son, Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka are deceased. The land in dispute was part of a larger piece of land owned by Ernest Obiora?s father, Ozo Nnaemeka Onwudinjo. The said Ozo Nnaemeka Onwudinjo had constructed chain of stores on the front of the land in dispute facing Zik’s Avenue, Awka. On the demise of his father, Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka got the land in dispute as his own share of his father?s estate. The land is

known as and called No. 81 Zik’s Avenue, Awka. On inheriting the land after his father?s death, Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka established his homestead on the land and was living thereon with his four wives and all his children and grandchildren. Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka constructed chain of stores on both the Dike Street side and Isiagu Amikwo Street side of the land in dispute bringing the total number of stores on the land in dispute to 42. Ernest was collecting rent from the 42 shops and taking care of all his four wives and children until his demise intestate in 1994 when the father of the 3rd Appellant and the first son of Ernest, Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka, took over the collection of rents from the tenants in the 42 stores. The Respondents claimed that the rents collected were not shared to all resulting in a great deal of crisis in the family. Complaints were made to the larger Nnaemeka family and to FIDA. The matter was yet to be settled when Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka died in March 2012. After the funeral ceremony of Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka, the father of the 3rd appellant, the mothers of the Respondents and the Respondents

approached the 1st and 2nd Appellants and demanded for partitioning of the land in dispute including the buildings and the stores thereon among the four ogbolodo (Stirpe) to enable each ogbolodo take possession and ownership of its own share whereupon the 1st and 2nd Appellants told the Respondents and their mothers that the land in dispute devolved to the 3rd Appellant as the first son of Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka. The Respondents then instituted this suit for themselves and on behalf of other members of the Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka family excepting the defendants claiming as follows:
a. A declaration that the land in dispute including the buildings and the stores thereon situate at No. 81 Zik’s Avenue, Awka became family land of the entire Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka’s family members at the death of the said Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka whose marriage to his four wives were under the native law and custom and who died intestate.
b. A declaration that the plaintiffs’ father’s land in dispute including the buildings and the stores thereon situate at No. 81 Zik’s Avenue, Awka is to be shared among the sons of the said

Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka in accordance with the native law and custom of Awka town by partitioning same into four stirpes, ogbolodo.
c. An order of the Honourable Court to partition the plaintiffs’ father’s land in dispute including the buildings and the stores thereon situate at No. 81 Zik’s Avenue, Awka communally held by the parties in accordance with the native law and custom of Awka town into four stirpes;
d. An order of the Honourable Court appointing the Assistant Chief Registrar or any other senior staff of the Judiciary to supervise the said partition.

Along with the writ of summons, statement of claim, list of witnesses and written depositions on oath of the witnesses, the Respondents also filed a motion on notice praying for the following orders:
a. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents, servants and privies from collecting rents or further collecting rents from the tenants in the 42 stores on the land in dispute, ejecting any tenant or giving any of the stores to anybody whatsoever on lease until the determination of this suit;

b. An order appointing the Assistant Chief Registrar or any other appropriate staff of the Judiciary as a Receiver to commence forth-with to collect the rents from the 42 stores on the land in dispute until the determination of this suit.

The application was supported by an affidavit of 29 paragraphs. The Respondents also filed a written address. The appellants, on receipt of the originating processes filed their counter affidavit to the motion, Statement of Defence and other processes accompanying same. The Appellants counter-claimed as follows:
a. A DECLARATION that the land in dispute (obu) and the stores and buildings thereon situate at No. 81 Zik’s Avenue, Awka devolved unto Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka being the 1st son of Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka, and which land also devolved unto the 3rd defendant on record being the 1st son of Chukwuemeka Nnaemeka.
b. A DECLARATION that in accordance with Awka native law and custom a family ancestral compound is not amendable (sic) to sharing and not subject to an Order of partition.
c. A DECLARATION that the 1st son of a man who

performed his funeral rites is entitled to his father’s ?obu? and if he dies, his 1st son becomes entitled to it if he also performs his father’s funeral rites.

The lower Court after hearing the parties gave a bench ruling granting the prayers of the Respondents in the following terms:
a. The Defendants/Respondents, their agents, servants and privies are hereby restrained from further collecting rents from the tenants on the 42 stores on the land in dispute, ejecting any tenant or giving any of the stores to anybody whatsoever on lease pending the determination of this suit;
b. The Assistant Chief Registrar, High Court Awka is hereby appointed a Receiver to commence forthwith to collect the rents from the 42 stores on the land in dispute pending the determination of this suit; and
c. The rents collected by the Assistant Chief Registrar, High Court Awka shall be paid into an interest yielding account in any reputable Bank at Awka which total sum shall be shared amongst the parties in whose favour the judgment in the suit are at the determination of the suit.

Dissatisfied with the Ruling, learned counsel for the

Appellant appealed by a Notice of appeal containing two grounds of appeal, out of which they formulated the following issues for determination:
a) Whether the honourable trial Court had jurisdiction over the reliefs contained in the interlocutory application of 28/1/2013 which were not directly working in tandem with the reliefs of the respondents in the substantive action.
b) Whether the honourable trial judge was right in granting reliefs claimed at interlocutory stage which are not in respect of the issues canvassed in the substantive suit.

The Respondents on their part formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
Whether the trial Court was right in granting the prayers of the respondents in their application for grant of injunction and appointment of a receiver considering the facts and circumstances of the suit that gave rise to this interlocutory appeal?

APPELLANTS? ARGUMENTS:
Learned counsel for the Appellant on issue 1, whether the honourable trial Court had jurisdiction over the reliefs submitted that a casual look at the claims of the Respondents in the substantive suit and the prayers

contained in the interlocutory application will reveal the following: (a) that the reliefs sought in the interlocutory application are not before the Court in a properly constituted suit (b) that the claim of the Respondents in the substantive suit is independent and unconnected to the interlocutory application. Counsel submitted that the law requires interlocutory applications to have direct bearing to a pending suit for the Court to assume jurisdiction over it. He referred to Order 3 Rules 1 to 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 of Anambra State. Counsel cited the case of STALLION (NIG) LTD VS. E.F.C.C. (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1087) 461 @ 473-474 where it was held thus:
“Where an interlocutory relief sought is not in respect of or directly related to a claim before the Court, the Court is without competence and jurisdiction to hear it since it is not in respect of a claim before it. Therefore, an application for interlocutory injunction will not be granted unless it relates to a subject matter which constitutes a triable issue in the substantive suit before the Court.”

Counsel also cited the cases OF ADENUGA VS. ODUMERU (2001) 2 NWLR (PT …696) 184 OR (2001) 5

NSCOR 148 @ 160 and ADEWALE BELLO CONSTRUCTION C. LTD VS. I.B.W.A LTD (1991)7 NWLR (PT.204) 498.

Counsel submitted that from the above authorities, it is crystal clear that the honourable trial Court had no power to consider the interlocutory application of 28/1/2013 let alone the power to grant it. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Appellants.

On issue 2, whether the honourable trial judge was right in granting reliefs claimed at interlocutory stage which are not in respect of the issues canvassed in the substantive suit, counsel submitted that the Respondents took out this action on 28/1/2013 claiming a declaration and for partitioning of a supposed family property without any claim for account of rents from the stalls and buildings therein or for the sharing of already collected rents amongst the Ogbolodos. He submitted that the Respondents did not seek perpetual Injunction to restrain the appellants from collecting rents from the stalls and buildings on the supposed family land. But in an application for interlocutory injunction filed on the same 28/1/2013 the Respondents prayed for an interlocutory

injunction to restrain the appellants from collecting rents from the stalls on the disputed land and for the appointment of Assistant Chief Registrar as the receiver of rents. Learned counsel submitted that the honourable trial judge erred in law when he granted prayers contained in an interlocutory application which were not raised in the substantive action. Counsel cited the case of NWANNEWUIHE VS. NWANNEWUIHE (2007)16 NWLR (PT.L059)1 @ 13 where it was held thus:
“Generally, the scope of interlocutory injunctions is limited to the actual res in a suit. It’s usually based on specific claim or reliefs sought in the substantive suit or appeal.”

Counsel also referred to EFE FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD VS. OSAGIE OKEKE OTEGBOLA & CO. (2000) 5 NWLR (PT.658) 536 and ADENUGA VS. ODUMERU (SUPRA) @ 160 where the Supreme Court held thus:
“The application by the plaintiffs/appellants seeking for injunctive orders is clearly not within the claim and not directly related to the claim. The application therefore cannot be for the protection of a right before the Court, which may be violated, unless the application was granted.

Learned counsel urged us to resolve the issue

in favour of the appellant, to allow this appeal and to set aside the decision of the trial Court.

RESPONDENTS? ARGUMENTS:
On its lone issue, whether the trial Court was right in granting the prayers of the respondents in their application for grant of injunction and appointment of a receiver considering the facts and circumstances of the suit that gave rise to this interlocutory appeal, learned counsel submitted that it is trite law that when an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain a defendant from doing acts alleged to be in violation of the plaintiffs legal right is made upon contested facts, the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when hypothetically the existence of the right or the violation of it or both is uncertain until final judgment is given in the action. Counsel submitted that it is to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period it would take to resolve the uncertainty that the practice arose of granting him relief by way of interlocutory injunction. Counsel called in aid the

cases of OGUNSOLA V. USMAN (2002) 14 NWLR (PT.788) 636 @ 655 ? 656 and STALLION (NIG.) LTD. V. E.F.CC (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1087) 461 OR (2008) LPELR-9267(CA).

After a careful scrutiny of the case of Stallion (Supra), the averments in the Statement of Claim paragraphs 29-31 (pages 8-9 of the Record of Appeal), counsel submitted that the Respondents applied to the lower Court for an injunctive relief against the Appellants to stop them from collecting rents in respect of the 42 stores on the land in dispute. He submitted that the complaint of the Appellants that the reliefs sought in the interlocutory application are not before the Court in a properly constituted suit and that the claim of the Respondents in the substantive suit is independent and unconnected to the interlocutory application is misconceived. Counsel submitted that the reliefs sought in the application are certainly not independent of the claims in the substantive suit. He argued that the order of injunction and appointment of a receiver sought in the application were generously couched to include only the issues raised in the claim as they relate to the rents being collected over

the 42 stores, ownership of which will be determined in the main suit. Counsel submitted that the reliefs sought in the application for injunction are connected to the claims in the substantive suit and that the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain same. He urged us to so hold.

RESOLUTION:
It is a correct statement of the law that interlocutory injunction will not be granted unless it relates to a subject matter which constitutes a triable issue in the substantive suit before the Court. In STALLION (NIG) LTD VS. E.F.C.C. (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1087) 461 @ 473-474, relied heavily upon by both sides, the Lower Court after taking argument in respect of a Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction delivered its ruling granting the Appellants’ prayers in part. The Lower Court refused that aspect of the Appellants’ prayer seeking injunction to restrain the 3rd Respondent from “…instigating the Central Bank of Nigeria from granting foreign exchange approvals for the plaintiffs’ lawful businesses…” on the ground that same was not related to any of the substantive claims

before the Lower Court. The Appellants being dissatisfied with that aspect of the ruling appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal succeeded and the Court, per MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A as she then was held inter alia:
?The premises for an application for an interlocutory injunction is the claim before the Court. An interlocutory injunction is usually granted with the object of keeping matters in status quo until the question at issue before the parties is determined. It is not available in respect of issues not raised in the action or proceedings before the Court when such issues or matters are directly related to the issues raised. It is therefore not available to restrain parties in respect of matters outside the issue raised in appeal before the Appeal Court. See Akibu v. Oduntan (1991) 2 NWLR(pt.171) 1 at 14 per Nnaemeka-Agu JSC; Ojukwu v. Lagos State Government (1986) 3 NWLR (pt.26) 39; Obeya Memorial Specialist Hospital v. Attorney-General (1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 60) 325; Vaswani v. Savalakh (1972) 12 SC 77 at 81; Okafor v. Nnaife (1987) 4 NWLR(pt. 64) 129 at 136 – 138; Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.112) 613 at 617.

Where interlocutory reliefs sought, are not in respect of or directly related to a claim before the Court, the Court is without competence and jurisdiction to hear it, since it is not in respect of a claim before it.
See Adenuga v. Odumeru (2001) 2 NWLR (pt. 696) 184 at 196, 198, 199; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 .
An application for interlocutory injunction will not be granted unless it relates to a subject matter which constitutes a triable issue in the substantive suit before Court. I rely on Adewale Bello Construction Co. Ltd. v. International Bank of West Africa Limited (1991) 7 NWLR (pt.204) 498.
The Ruling of the Court below which forms the gravamen of this appeal are restated below as follows at page 132 of the Records:-
“The order of injunction sought in this application is generously couched to include both issues raised and those not raised. The Court can only grant issues raised in the claim before the Court. From the writ and statement of claim of the plaintiffs before the Court the plaintiffs never claimed any of those reliefs loaded into the prayer for injunction other than that relating to

confiscating, closing or sealing up of the plaintiffs’ businesses. The Court cannot therefore grant any of those that are not part of the claim pending before the Court. I hold therefore that it is the first leg of the prayer that is qualified for consideration in this application”.
If indeed neither in the Writ nor Statement of Claim the issue of the instigation of the Central Bank is shown to exist then the learned trial Judge may well be right. However, I have perused the Statement of Claim which spans from pages 6 – 16 and at paragraph 24 it is stated as follows:-
“24. The Plaintiffs state that as a result of the unwarranted and unfounded allegations by the 1st and 2nd Defendants that the Plaintiffs are involved in fraudulent and shady financial transactions, the Central Bank of Nigeria has stopped approving foreign exchange for the plaintiffs for their various lawful businesses”.
From the above it cannot be right to say that in requesting the injunction or this leg of injunctive relief that the Plaintiffs/Appellants went outside the issues or issue which form the fulcrum of the interlocutory injunction reliefs sought. Nor can it be

correctly contended that the conditions upon which an interlocutory injunction would be granted did not exist for that head of prayer.”

The Respondents in their brief of argument rightly submitted that:
?the respondents in the instant appeal applied to the lower Court for an injunctive relief against the appellants to stop the appellants from collecting rents in respect of 42 stores on the land in dispute. It is the grouse of the appellants that the reliefs sought in the interlocutory application are not before the Court in a properly constituted suit and that the claim of the respondents in the substantive suit is independent and unconnected to the interlocutory application but I most respectfully submit, that the learned counsel for the appellants misconstrued the application of the respondents as the reliefs sought in the application by the Respondents are not independent at all of the claim in the substantive suit. The statement of claim of the respondents is of 35 paragraphs and at paragraphs 29-31 (pages 8-9 of the Record of Appeal), the respondents averred as follows:

“29. The said 3rd defendant’s father commenced collecting rents from the said tenants in respect of all the 42 stores but was not sharing same with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ mothers which said act caused a lot of strife in the said Ernest Obiora Nnaemeka’s family and when the said dispute could not be resolved amicably, the mothers of the plaintiffs reported the father of the 3rd defendant to the Nnaemeka larger family who deliberated upon the dispute and told the 3rd defendant’s father to share the proceeds from the said stores equitable among the parties but he refused which forced the mothers of the plaintiffs to report the 3rd defendant’s father to Federacione Internatione Da Abogadas (FIDA) popularly called International Federation of Female Lawyers, Anambra State.
30. In 2011, the said FIDA wrote to the father of the 3rd defendant and invited him for amicable resolution of the crises and when the father of the 3rd defendant refused to honour the said invitation, the said FIDA wrote to all the tenants informing them that the stores are not the sole inheritance of the father of the 3rd

defendant and that they should stop paying rent to the father of the 3rd defendant until the resolution of the crises but in March, 2012, the 3rd defendant’s father died.
31. After the burial and funeral ceremony of the father of the 3rd defendant, the mothers of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs approached the 1st and 2nd defendants and demanded for partition of the land in dispute including the buildings and the stores thereon among the four ogbolodo to enable each ogbolodo take possession and ownership of its own share whereupon the 1st and 2nd,defendant told the plaintiffs and their mothers that the land in dispute devolved to the 3rd ‘defendant as the first son of the first son of the plaintiff’s father hence this suit.”
The reliefs as contained in the application of the respondents are, therefore, qualified for consideration in the application before the lower Court and the lower Court was imbued with ample jurisdiction to grant same.?

I agree with the Respondents. In the writ of summons and Statement of claim, the Respondents asked for partitioning of the land which includes the 42 stores among the four wives of their father.

If they succeed each unit of the four will take charge of its share including the rents from the stores allocated to it. In the meantime they asked for injunction restraining the Appellants from collecting the rents from the 42 stores for their exclusive use which application was granted by the trial judge. The ACR High Court Awka was appointed a Receiver to collect the rents from the 42 stores on the land in dispute pending the determination of the suit and he was directed to pay the rents into an interest yielding account in any reputable Bank at Awka which total sum shall be shared amongst the parties in whose favour the judgment goes at the determination of the suit. Broken down in this manner, it is obvious that the contention of the Appellant that the reliefs sought in the interlocutory application are not before the Court in a properly constituted suit or that the claim of the respondents in the substantive suit is independent and unconnected to the interlocutory application is misconceived. They are inter-related. The claim in the substantive suit for partitioning of the land inclusive of the 42 stores is all encompassing. Appellants had no need to

claim for account of rents from the stores or for the sharing of already collected rents amongst the Ogbolodos to justify their claim for injunction restraining the Appellants from continuing to collect rents and for appointment of a receiver. Their interest is for future collection of rents and not in respect of rents already collected. There is also no need for the Respondents in the substantive suit to seek perpetual Injunction to restrain the Appellants from collecting rents from the 42 stores because if their prayer for partitioning is granted, then the question of the Appellants continuing to collect rent from the tenants in the 42 stores cannot then arise.

Learned counsel for the Respondents is right in his submission and it is the law that a Court has a duty to take into account certain issues before deciding on whether or not to grant an order of interlocutory injunction. Some of the most important of the issues to be considered by the Court include (1) The applicant?s real prospect of success in the right claimed (2) Balance of convenience (3) Relative strength of the case of the parties (4) Conduct of the parties

(5) Inadequacy of payment of damages. Nonetheless, the Court has an unfettered discretion to grant or refuse to grant an order of interlocutory injunction; but like all other judicial discretions, the Court has an obligation to exercise such discretion not only judicially but also judiciously. Under the circumstances prevailing in this case, I am of the view that the lower Court was right in granting the injunction and in appointing the DCR to collect rents from the tenants in the 42 stores for safe keeping with interest pending the determination of the suit when the rents and interest can be paid over to the party entitled to it in accordance with the judgment of the Court. As submitted by Respondent?s counsel and as held in AMADI V. N.N.P.C. (2000) FWLR (PT. 9) 1527, (2000) 6 SC (PT. 1) 66 AT 82, interlocutory appeals of this nature cause unnecessary delay in the hearing of the substantive suits. They waste the resources and precious time not only of the Court but the parties in the suit. This appeal is lacking in merit. It is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.: I agree with the lead Judgment prepared by my learned brother CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA JCA dismissing this Interlocutory Appeal.
I adopt the order as to cost made in the lead Judgment.

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered herein by my learned brother CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, JCA and I totally endorse the reasoning and conclusion therein.
I equally find no merit whatsoever in this appeal and I dismiss it in its entirety.

Appearances:

G. U. Muoneke, Esq. with him, U. C. Molokwu, Esq.For Appellant(s)

Amaka Ezeno, Esq. with him, S. A. Madubuife, Esq.For Respondent(s)

Appearances

G. U. Muoneke, Esq. with him, U. C. Molokwu, Esq.For Appellant

AND

Amaka Ezeno, Esq. with him, S. A. Madubuife, Esq.For Respondent