ATBU v. OBOH (2020)

ATBU v. OBOH

(2020)LCN/14224(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, May 21, 2020

CA/J/356/2018

BRAIN C.I. NWOGBO For Respondent(s)

Before Our Lordships:

Tani Yusuf Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ABUBAKAR TAFAWA BALAWE UNIVERSITY APPELANT(S)

And

ALOM VICTOR OBOH RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

RIGHT OF FAIR HEARING

The principles of natural justice, demand that a student accused of examination malpractice and cheating and expelled for that allegation must be afforded an opportunity by the Senate, the body statutorily empowered to take such decision, either judicially or quasi-judicially, to:
(a) Know the allegation against him;
(b) Be present when the case against him is heard, and
(c) To state his side of the allegation and contradict the case against him by the cross-examination of the witnesses called by his accusers.
The facts clearly established that the Senate of the university, in their decision to expel the respondent for examination malpractice and cheating acted arbitrarily and thereby violated the respondent’s right and thereby violated in the context of “audi altrem partem” under Section 36(1) of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The Section provides requirements, non-compliance with which will constitute the breach of the party’s right to fair hearing. See Edwin Vs. State (2019) 7 NWLR (1672) 553; C.M. & E.S. Ltd. Vs. Pazan Service (Nig.) Ltd. (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1704) 70 and Poroye Vs. Makarfi (2018)1 NWLR (Pt. 1599)91. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEAL CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

Where the findings of a trial Court are not perverse and do not occasion a miscarriage of justice, the appellate Court will not interfere therewith. See Ewugba Vs. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 262 at 272 and Okonkwo Vs. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Plc. (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 1 at 4. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.

TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the decision of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Bauchi delivered on the 17th of May, 2018 by Honourable Justice M.S. Abubakar in Suit No. FHC/BAU/C5/13/2013.

The respondent as plaintiff at the lower Court commenced this action by a writ of summons dated and filed on the 12th day of June, 2013 against the defendant, appellant herein. By an Amended Statement of Claim dated and filed on the 23rd day of February, 2016, the plaintiff claims against the defendant as follows:
1. A declaration that the purported letter of expulsion is actuated by malice, hence it is null, void and of no effect.
2. A declaration that failure of the defendant to provide the students with Examination material during the 2nd semester examination of ME 224 in 2012 that generate the whole problem of this case amount to negligence.
3. An order of this Court directing the defendant to withdraw the expulsion letter and to release the plaintiff’s manuscript with immediate effect.
4. The sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as special damages.

PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES
(i) The amount the plaintiff paid to his lawyer as cost of prosecuting this suit in the sum of N500,000.00.
5. The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages.

The defendant filed a statement of defence in response to the plaintiff’s claims.

At trial before the lower Court, the respondent as plaintiff testified alone and tendered ten exhibits marked as exhibits “A-J”. The defendant/appellant called three witnesses and tendered four exhibits “K-N”. At the conclusion of trial, judgment was entered in favour of the respondent.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to this Court on nine grounds of appeal with their particulars and reliefs sought.

The appellant’s brief of argument dated 31st day of January, 2019 was filed on the 4th of February, 2019 and deemed filed on the 9th of May, 2019. The brief settled by Dahiru Abdulhameed Esq., has five issues distilled for determination.
“(1) Whether the lower Court has properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it by both parties and has in consequence thereof come to the right decision” (Grounds 1, 2,

4 and 9)
(2) Whether the lower Court has properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it by both parties and was right in failing to consider the reply on points of law made by the appellant.” (Ground 3)
(3) Whether the failure of the appellant to call the HOD as witness amounts to admission on its part. (Ground 5)
(4) Whether the consequences of being caught with foreign material was in issue before the lower Court thereby casting the burden of proof of same on the appellant” (Ground 6)
(5) Whether the appellant had established malpractice of cheating against the respondent and was therefore justified in wielding its powers under Abubakar Yafawa Balewa Act Cap AI Laws of the Federation 2004 to expel the respondent” (Ground 8)

Ground 7 is deemed abandoned having no issue distilled therefrom.

Learned counsel for the appellant adopted the brief and urged the Court to allow the appeal.

The respondent’s brief settled by Brain C.I. Nwogbo was dated and filed on the 9th of October, 2019 but deemed filed on the 14th of October, 2019. Two issues were identified therein for determination thus:

(1) “Whether the lower Court did not properly evaluate the evidence of the parties before arriving at the decision that a case of examination malpractice and cheating was not proved against the respondent” (relates and responds to issues 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the appellant).
(2) Whether the appellant challenged the evidence of the respondent; and if not, Whether the failure of the appellant to so challenge the evidence of the respondent does not amount to admission, warranting the lower Court to act on it.” (This responds to issue 5 of the appellant)

Learned counsel for the respondent adopted the brief and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.

It is elementary that when issues are formulated for determination of an appeal, the issues are tied to the grounds of appeal under which they are formulated. The procedure adopted by the respondent’s counsel is strange when he tied the issues he formulated with the issues formulated by the appellants. It is not done that way. Legal practitioners have been admonished time and again against the proliferation of issues. I am of the view that the two issues formulated by the respondent

are adequate to dispose of this appeal. In the circumstances, I adopt them in the resolution of this appeal. The two issues to be taken together.
ISSUE ONE
“Whether the lower Court has properly evaluated the evidence of the parties before arriving at the decision that a case of examination malpractice and cheating was not proved against the respondent.”
ISSUE TWO
“Whether the appellant challenged the evidence of the respondent; and if not, Whether the failure of the appellant to so challenge the evidence of the respondent does not amount to admission, warranting the lower Court to act on it.”

Learned counsel for the appellant in arguing this appeal contends that the respondent’s grouse upon which his claim is predicated is that he was discriminated against religious grounds as he allegedly did not commit the offence of being in possession of foreign material during the examination that gave rise to the suit before the lower Court. Counsel referred to exhibit “3” which unequivocally show that the respondent was indeed caught with foreign material during the examination in issue. That the

respondent duly identified exhibit ‘3’ as the document he wrote and also identified exhibit ‘E’ as the foreign material found on him. He continued that the respondent, who pleaded and testified that he was discriminated, exonerated the appellant on the alleged discrimination or malice under cross-examination.

Counsel submits that, there is nowhere in the entire testimony of the respondent that he proved the alleged malice culminating in his expulsion. Relying on the case of Musa Vs. Yusuf (2006)6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 453-474 para G-A, it is submitted that the respondent failed woefully to prove the elements of malice.

Submitting further, that the case of the respondent being declaratory in nature, the onus is on the respondent to prove same by cogent and credible evidence and not to rely on the weakness of the defence. He referred to Mohammed Vs. Wammako (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 573 at 590 paras A-E and Akinbade Vs. Babatunde (2018)7 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 366 at 388 paras D-F.

Learned counsel, in arguing that evaluation of evidence is the primary duty of the trial Court, relied on the cases of Oyadiji Vs. Olaniyi (2005)5 NWLR (Pt.

919) 561 at 565;Eze Vs. Okoloagu (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1180)183 at 191 and Adedoyin Vs. Amoo (2018) LPELR – 44978, to submit that if the trial Court had evaluated the piece of evidence both oral and documentary, its decision would have been in favour of the appellant.

That the learned trial judge after reviewing the evidence and submissions of counsel for both parties, held that the appellant did not establish that the respondent was caught with foreign material or was not caught cheating. Counsel argued that the finding is perverse and runs contrary to the evidence proffered by both parties when the respondent under cross-examination and the documentary evidence tendered by the appellant show that the respondent was caught with foreign material.

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the respondent did not claim to be re-instated but the trial Court ordered that he be reinstated.

Relying on Osuji Vs. Ekeocha (2009)16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81 at 111 paras C-E, 120 paras A-D, 138 paras B-D and 142 paras C-D, it is submitted that a Court can only grant a relief sought by a party.

That where the evaluation of evidence

will not entail the assessment of credibility of witnesses, this Court can draw inferences from admitted and proven facts to re-evaluate and make its findings. The Court was referred to Adetula Vs. Akinyosoye (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1592) 492 at 519 paras B-D; Mathew Vs. Otabor (2015)14 NWLR (Pt. 1479) 360 at 382 paras E-A and Karibo & Ors. Vs. Grend & Anor. (1992)9 LECN 766 at 767 – 768.

With regard to the appellant’s reply on point of law, counsel argued that failure of the trial Court to consider the appellant’s reply on point of law is a breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing which renders the judgment a nullity.

On the issue of failure of the appellant to call the Head of Department (H.O.D) as a witness, learned counsel submitted that the respondent having admitted under cross-examination that he was not discriminated, there was nothing for the appellant to contradict by calling the HOD, as evidence which is admitted need no further proof. Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of CBN Vs. Interstella (2018)7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294 at 314 were referred to.

On whether the consequence of being

caught with foreign material was an issue before the Court, counsel argued that the case of the respondent as presented before the lower Court, the respondent did not raise or contend the consequences of being in possession of foreign material. That the case presented by the respondent at the lower Court was that he was caught with the alleged foreign material to which the school’s examination misconduct committee recommended that he be warned, while the full senate recommended for his expulsion.

Counsel submits that the trial judge was in error when he suo motu raised the issue of the consequence of being found with foreign material. He referred to University of Calabar Vs. Essien (1996) 44 LRCN 2280 at 2322 FP; Section 37(1) of the Interpretation Act, Leadership News Papers Group Ltd. Vs. Mantu (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt.1548) 1 at 51 para F, Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, 2011; INEC Vs. Asuquo (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1624) 305 at 330 paras A-C, Haruna Vs. Uni Agric Makurdi (2005)3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 233 at 270 paras F-G and submits that Examination Misconduct Regulations and the student Hand Book are subsidiary legislation made by the appellant which

requires the Court to take judicial notice.

That there is no burden on the appellant to tender same and the trial Court was in error when it held that it could not reach an opinion for failure of the appellant to tender same in evidence. That the error occasioned miscarriage of justice.

With regard to the issue as to whether the appellant had established examination malpractice or cheating against the respondent, appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant has established beyond contest that the respondent was caught cheating during the examination in issue. He referred to the evidence of the respondent under cross-examination where he admitted that exhibit “E” contained past question papers and answers and his admission was fortified by the findings of the School’s Examination Misconduct Committee and Senate Examinations Misconduct Committee.

It is submitted that, under the Act establishing the appellant, the Senate is the Supreme authority in respect of academic issues. He referred to F.U.T Minna Vs. Olutayo (2018) 7NWLR (Pt. 1617)176 at 189 paras A-C, to submit that the Senate being the Supreme authority is not

bound by the recommendation of both the School Examination Committee and Senate Examination Misconduct Committee.
The Court is urged to resolve in favour of the appellant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent in conceding that evaluation of evidence is the primary duty of the trial Court, submits that the appellant’s counsel did not identify the evidence that was not properly evaluated by the trial Court and therefore failed to discharge the burden placed on him, by law. Relying on Balogun Vs. Banjo (2006)3 FWLR (Pt. 326) 4636 at 4648 para A-H and Nkpa Vs. Nkume (2001)6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 543, it is submitted that the trial judge did properly evaluate the evidence of the parties before it. He referred to pages 255-268 of the record to show the industry the trial judge exhibited in the evaluation of the evidence which led to the erudite decision.

That the learned trial judge was right in holding that the appellant did not establish a case of examination malpractice against the respondent. Counsel referred to the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 as contained in their respective witnesses statements on oath.

Submitting further,

learned counsel for the respondent contends that the rejection by the Senate of the recommendation of the School’s Examination Misconduct Committee and Senate Examination Misconduct Committee without calling on the respondent to appear before him means and includes the rejection of the inquiries/investigations the committees made to arrive at the recommendation. That Examination Malpractice is an offence under the Examination Malpractice Act, Cap E15 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 triable by the Federal High Court as provided in Section 19 of the Act. That it is not an internal affair of the Universities and the appellant has no power to have tried the respondent by the two committees set up or by Senate itself as it did. In support of this submission counsel referred to Olutayo Vs. FUT Minna & 3 Ors. (2007)13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 274 at 3030 paras D-H.

That even if the appellant is empowered to try the respondent, the respondent ought to have been invited to hear from him but he was denied fair hearing on the principles of natural justice encapsulated in the twin pillars – nemo judex in causa sua; and audi alterem partem (no one can be

a judge in his own cause; and hear the next party). He relied onChukwuma (aka Goddy) Vs. FRN (2011)5 SCNJ 40 at 57-58 and Ika Local Govt. Area Vs. Augustine Mba (2007)12 NWLR (Pt. 1049) 626 at 704 para E-H to submit that the appellant had breached the principle of fair hearing against the respondent.

With regard to the reply on point of law which the appellant’s counsel alleged that it was not considered by the trial Court, counsel submits that the replies were repetitions of what had already been addressed, but the trial Court still considered same as clearly shown in the ratio decidendi upon which the judgment appealed against was based.

In response to the appellant’s contention that the consequences of being caught with foreign material was not in issue at the trial Court, for which the appellant was called upon to prove, counsel submits the consequence of being caught with foreign material was the cause of action that led to the institution of this action at the lower Court.

That by the Amended Statement of claim the reliefs claimed against the appellant was as a result of the respondent’s expulsion from the institution by

the appellant on allegation that the respondent was found with foreign material during the examination of the subject ME 224 (Thermo Sciences)

Learned counsel submits that the trial Court arrived at the right conclusion when it held that the appellant who alleged that the respondent was caught with foreign material failed to prove the allegation and was caught with the provision of Section 167(c) (d) of the Evidence Act.

It is also the submission of the respondent’s counsel that the appellant’s counsel argument on Examination Misconduct Regulations and Student Hand Book of Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University was a misconception as they were not pleaded nor tendered before the trial Court since issues were not joined on these documents and the Court is not under any obligation to take judicial notice of everything. The Court was referred toRichard Omidiora Vs. Fed. Civil Service Comm. & 3 Ors. (2007)14 NWLR (Pt. 1053)17 at 34 and Mantec Water Treatment Nig. Ltd. Vs. Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund (2007)15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 451 at 476 and Amaechi Vs. INEC & 2 Ors. (2008)5 NWLR (Pt. 1080)277 and Section 122 of Evidence Act, 2011.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

On failure of the appellant to challenge the evidence of the respondent, learned counsel for the respondent referred to paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the respondents’ claim which the appellant denied in its paragraph 14 of its statement of defence and put the plaintiff/respondent to the strictest proof of same. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff testified in proof of the said paragraphs but he was not cross examined by the appellant on those facts. That bare denial does not amount to denial in law. He referred to Nig. Nat Petroleum Corp (NNPC) & 1 or vs. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 148.

Counsel argued that failure to cross examine on the evidence of the respondent is a tacit acceptance of the truth of the evidence. He relied on Bamidele Patrick Vs. State (2018)16 NWLR (pt. 1645) 263 at 283 para F-G; Attorney General of Abia State Vs. Attorney General of the Federation & 33 Ors. (2016) 1 FWLR (Pt. 299) 570 at 624 para B-G, Central Bank of Nigeria Vs. Igwillo (2007)14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 393 at 435 para E and Olusanya Vs. Adebanjo Osinleye (2013)5 SCNJ 660 at 674.

That failure to call the Head of Department (H.O.D) to testify In

contravention of the respondent’s assertion, the appellant is caught by the provision of Section 167 of the Evidence Act.
The Court is urged to resolve in favour of the respondent.

The respondent was a student of Abubakar Tafawa Belewa University (ATBU) Bauchi in the Department of Electrical/Electronic Engineering. He was a 300 level student in the University. In September, 2012, he was about to sit for the 2nd term examination on ME 224 (Thermo Science) when the invigilator as he was giving the question papers, instructed every student to use his steam table. He claims that all the materials to be used in the examination has been paid for, including the steam table but the school management failed to provide same during the examination, instead the students were asked to bring into the examination Hall their own steam table.

The invigilator drew the attention of the respondent to what he handed over to him (invigilator) was a foreign material to which the respondent showed his surprise. The respondent said he was delayed in writing the examination until 30 minutes to the end of the examination, before he was allowed to write the

examination and was forced to sign the examination malpractice form.
That despite the delay he still scored C in the paper. The plea of other students on his behalf to the invigilator and other lecturers on his non-involvement in any malpractice fell on deaf ears.

After the examination, the respondent was later invited by the University Authority to come and face the school panel which he did and explained what happened in the examination hall. After investigation by the University Panel, it was resolved that the respondent be issued with a warning letter and it was so issued. The warning letter was dated 8th February, 2013.

The respondent discovered that his safety in the school as a student is no longer guaranteed, he therefore sought for a transfer to University of Agriculture Makurdi. He took the transfer form to his Supervisor for endorsement. According to him the supervisor refused to sign and told him (respondent) that he will not escape and will make sure that he is expelled. On the 18th of February, 2013 he was issued with a letter of expulsion by the Senate. Request for the withdrawal of expulsion letter by the respondent to the

appellant did not receive positive response.

On the 12th of June, 2013, the respondent approached the High Court of Bauchi State to declare his expulsion as null and void and for an order directing the appellant to withdraw the expulsion letter. The appellant joined issues with the respondent by filing a statement of defence.

The most fundamental of these facts are that the respondent appeared before the Examination Misconduct Committee who resolved that the respondent be issued with a warning letter. However the Senate rejected the recommendation of the Examination Misconduct Committee and issued the respondent with an expulsion letter without calling on the respondent to appear before it.

The recommendation of the Examination Misconduct Committee goes to show that the allegation of Examination Malpractice and cheating against the respondent was not established or proved, hence it was resolved that the respondent be served with a warning letter.

This is so because the respondent in his evidence said in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his statement on oath thus:
7. ”That before the 2011/2012 2nd Semester, examination started, we were asked

to make use of our steam table. I rushed out and picked my own steam table from my bag and innocently handed same to the invigilator for proper checkup.
8. That the invigilator drew my attention to the fact that what I gave him was a foreign material out of shock I shouted Jesus.”

The Invigilator, Engineer Ahmed U. Ibrahim testified as DW1. In paragraphs 3, 7, 9, 10 & 11 of his statement on oath, he stated:
“3. That before the commencement of the examination and while the candidates were all seated, the Exams Officer Engr. Aje Tokan told the candidates to go and get their steam tables as none will be provided by the defendant.”
“7. That on searching the plaintiff’s steam table, foreign materials chopped out from the plaintiff’s steam table.”
“9. That the expression I saw on the face of the plaintiff gave me the feeling that there was a possibility that the foreign materials were not intentionally brought in and hidden by the plaintiff.”
“10. That I am fortified in my belief as deposed in paragraph 9 above because the student had the opportunity to remove the foreign

materials when he saw that the steam tables were being checked.”
“11. That it was because of the depositions in paras 9 and 10 which depositions are contained in our observations/findings (paragraphs 1,3 &8) of the Examination Misconduct Committee of the School of Engineering and Engineering Technology that the committee recommended leniency for the plaintiff.”

The respondent testified as PW1. Under cross-examination he said he shouted the name Jesus because he was surprised when the invigilator said something was in his steam table. DW1, the Invigilator also confirmed paragraphs 9-11 of his statement on oath as his true statement in the matter.

The Senate of the University did not consider the recommendation of the Examination Misconduct Committee when it issued a letter of expulsion to the respondent without giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard.

Now, the question is, if the Examination Misconduct Committee before whom the respondent appeared did not find the allegation of Examination Malpractice and cheating established against him, on what basis did the Senate of the university act to find the

respondent guilty and expelled him. No facts are available on this fundamental question.

The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that, Senate of the university being the Supreme Authority is not bound by the recommendation of the School’s Examination Committee and the Senate Examination Misconduct Committee and urged to so hold.

partem” under Section 36(1) of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The Section provides requirements, non-compliance with which will constitute the breach of the party’s right to fair hearing. See Edwin Vs. State (2019) 7 NWLR (1672) 553; C.M. & E.S. Ltd. Vs. Pazan Service (Nig.) Ltd. (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1704) 70 and Poroye Vs. Makarfi (2018)1 NWLR (Pt. 1599)91.
In the instant case the respondent was able to show that the Senate of the university did not give him an opportunity to be heard before he was issued a letter of expulsion. He is ordinarily entitled to be heard before the Senate of the university could take any decision on the allegations raised against him.
The decision of the Senate to expel him without hearing his own side of the story was in breach of his constitutional guaranteed right to fair hearing. Fair hearing entails hearing both sides before a decision is taken. See Akande Vs. State (1988)3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 681. In the instant case, the Senate of the university did not give the respondent a fair hearing.

It is also the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the

Examination Misconduct Regulations and the student Hand Book are subsidiary legislation made by the appellant and the appellant has no burden to tender them as the Court is required to take judicial notice of them.
The appellant having relied on the Rules governing examination misconduct used by the Senate to expel the respondent as deposed in paragraph 13(b) of its statement of defence, has a duty to place it for the Court to examine and determine on same. Failure to tender it means that the appellant is caught by the provision of Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides:
“Evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.”

Evaluation and assessment of evidence as well as ascription of probative value to such evidence is the primary function of the trial Court. Where the findings of a trial Court are not perverse and do not occasion a miscarriage of justice, the appellate Court will not interfere therewith. See Ewugba Vs. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 262 at 272 and Okonkwo Vs. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Plc. (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 1 at 4.

On the whole, the trial Court, in the instant case properly and adequately evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the right conclusion and decision. The findings and the conclusions of the trial Court were sound. I have no reason to interfere with the conclusions that are well founded. The findings are not perverse and do not occasion a miscarriage of justice as the learned counsel for the appellant wants the Court to believe.
The issues are resolved in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.
The appeal fails and it is dismissed.

The judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 17th of May, 2018 by Honourable Justice M.S. Abubakar in Suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/13/2013 is hereby affirmed. I award costs of N100,000.00 for the respondent against the appellant.

MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I read before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother TANI YUSUF HASSAN, JCA.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached that the appeal fails and should be dismissed.

I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court in suit No. PHC/BAU/CS/3/2013 delivered by Hon. Justice M.S. Abubakar on 17th day

of May, 2018 and the order on cost in favour of the Respondent.

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the lead judgment of my learned brother TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A., and I am in agreement with him that the appeal lacks merit; accordingly, I also dismiss it with costs as ordered by my learned brother.

Appearances:

L.S. IBRAHIM For Appellant(s)

BRAIN C.I. NWOGBO For Respondent(s)