BALARABE ISA ABDULLAHI v. MUTUNCHI PRIDE NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS
(2019)LCN/12506(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 4th day of January, 2019
CA/K/360/2016
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: JUDGMENT WRITING
“Judgment writing is an art by itself. It is individualistic in nature. Thus, there is no particular way or style specified by law which is mandatory for a judge to adopt in writing his judgement. Each judge or justice (as the case may be) is entitled to adopt and/or create his writing style and approach in penning down his decisions. No judgment would be rendered a nullity or set aside, solely on the ground that the judge who wrote the judgment adopted a style which the complaining party regarded as being unfavourable to his/her cause; provided the essential elements of a good judgment are contained in the said written decision. That is, dispassionate consideration and/or evaluation of the evidence led by the parties and its marriage with the current position of the law. The decision of Court would not be rendered a nullity or liable to be set aside or impugned merely because the judge or justice (as the case may be), considered first the case of the defendant or accused person before considering that of the claimant or the prosecution, and vice versa. The most important consideration in respect of a judgment on appeal would be the correctness of the decision reached, in the light of the evidence led by the parties and the current position of the law. See the cases of ADEYEYE & ANOR. VS. AJIBOYE & ORS. (1987) LPELR 175 (SC), (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) 432; NWANKPU & ANOR. VS. EWULU & ORS. (1995) LPELR 2107 (SC) and TANKO VS NONGHA (2005) LPELR 11405 (CA).” PER MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBIETONBARA O. DANIEL-KALIO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
BALARABE ISA ABDULLAHI – Appellant(s)
AND
1. MUTUNCHI PRIDE NIGERIA LTD
2. MOHAMMED SANI (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE) ”D” DEPARTMENT FORCE CID ANNEX KADUNA
3. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, KADUNA STATE
4. DASCO STEEL CONSTRUCTION CO. NIGERIA LTD
5. I. K. ISHAYA – Respondent(s)
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of High Court of Kaduna sitting at Kaduna. Coram: Hon. Justice B. U. Sukola, J., (hereinafter referred to as the lower Court and learned trial judge respectively). The said judgment was delivered on the 28th day of April, 2016.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE.
The suit whereat this appeal emanated from was commenced vide a writ of summons and statement of claim dated the 28th day of April, 2012. Both processes were subsequently filed on the 30th day of April, 2012. On the 23rd day of May, 2012 and as ordered by the learned trial judge, the proposed amended and substituted writ of summons and statement of claim with the front loaded documents marked Exhibits C & D respectively, were deemed properly filed and served.
The plaintiff/1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 1st respondent) commenced this suit and sought the recovery of four underground tanks which he claimed were forcibly impounded by the 1st & 2nd defendants/2nd & 3rd respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd & 3rd respondents). The 1st respondents case was that he contracted the 3rd & 5th defendants/4th & 5th respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 4th & 5th respondents) to construct five underground tanks which are to be used at its filling station. The 1st respondent stated that the agreed sum between the parties was N600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira Only) for each of the underground tanks and he paid the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) for the construction of the said underground tanks. The receipt acknowledging the payment was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibit A.
The 1st respondent further stated that it took possession of four out of the five underground tanks from the 4th & 5th respondents.
The 1st respondent stated that on the 27th day of April, 2012 it received an invitation from the 2nd respondent to appear before him with respect to an on going investigation. It stated further, that it honoured the invitation through one Idris Yusuf Abubakar (the PW1). And when its representative got to the office of the 2nd respondent, he discovered that the investigation was with respect to a complaint or petition submitted by the 4th defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). The appellant was also acclaimed to have equally contracted the 4th & 5th respondents to construct some underground tanks. It was added that they failed and/or were unable to deliver the tanks to him.
The 1st respondent stated that the 2nd & 3rd respondents directed its representatives to hand over the four underground tanks to the appellant on the basis that it was the appellant who contracted 4th & 5th respondents first and made payment to them prior to when the 1st respondent contracted them. The 1st respondents refused to obey this directive, consequently, the 2nd & 3rd respondents through their officers seized and took possession of one of the tanks from the 1st respondents premises. The 1st respondent also led evidence to show that the appellant and the 2nd & 3rd respondents vide a criminal summons and through an ex-parte motion took possession of the remaining underground tanks. Thus, the 1st respondent instituted this suit in its bid to recover the said underground tanks and by its amended statement of claim sought for the grant of the following reliefs:
a) A DECLARATION that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession and use of the 4 numbered underground tanks constructed by the 3rd defendant at the plaintiffs instance arising from the contract for the construction of 5 numbered underground tanks between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
b) A DECLARATION that the removal, seizure and detention of the 4 numbered underground tanks in the premises of the plaintiff by the 1st and 4th defendants in circumstances that are overreaching the plaintiff is unlawful and illegal.
c) AN ORDER directing the 1st and 4th defendants to return to the plaintiff forthwith the 4 underground tanks impounded and removed from the premises of the plaintiff.
d) AN ORDER directing the 1st, 3rd and 5th defendants to produce and deliver to the plaintiff in the plaintiffs premises at No. L. 10 Mothercat Road, Nnamdi Azikwe Way, Kaduna the 4 numbered underground tanks which are in their individual or collective possession.
e) AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN PERPETUITY restraining the 1st and 4th defendants from selling and or dealing with the 4 numbered underground tanks in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiffs ownership of the said underground tanks.
In response, the appellant, 2nd respondent and 4th & 5th respondents entered their respective defences against the claim. The appellants line of defence was that he was the proper party entitled to have the possession of the underground tanks on the basis that his interest was first in time and that the said four underground tanks were the exact number of tanks he contracted the 4th & 5th respondents to construct, contrary to the 1st respondent who contracted them to construct five underground tanks. The 2nd & 3rd respondents on their part aligned their evidence and defence with that of the appellant. In addition, the 4th & 5th respondents acknowledged that both the appellant and the 1st respondent contracted them as stated, but the four underground tanks which constitute the subject matter of this case were constructed for the appellant. However, the 5th respondent summersaulted and shot himself at the foot when he admitted under cross-examination that there is nothing written on the body of the said underground tanks that indicated that they belonged to the appellant and the 1st respondent having contracted him and paid, was also entitled to the underground tanks.
At the close of hearing, the lower Court ordered that final written addresses should be filed. The 1st respondent complied with the order, and it filed and adopted its final written address. The 4th & 5th respondents failed and/or did not bother to file their written address, while the 2nd & 3rd respondents who filed written address but despite being informed of the date the final address were to be adopted; their counsel failed to show up and they were deemed by the lower Court to have waived their right to adopt the said final written address. In a reserved judgment, the learned trial judge after a careful and thorough examination and evaluation of all the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties, found that the 1st respondent has on the preponderance of evidence established its case and entered judgment in its favour.
The appellant was not satisfied with the decision of the lower Court and has thereby appealed against the same to this Court through his notice of appeal dated the 9th day of May, 2016. The said notice of appeal was subsequently by order of this Court, amended and filed on the 6th day of March, 2017. The appellants complaints against the decision of the lower Court were expressed and captured in his six grounds of appeal. The amended grounds of appeal without their particulars are reproduced below as follows:
GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that he had gone through the whole proceedings and did not find where 4th defendant (respondent) have contractual relationship in relation to the 4 nos. by 40,000 litres capacity volume underground tanks.
GROUND TWO
The learned judge misdirected himself in law in a manner which occasioned miscarriage of justice when he first of all examined and sought out the weaknesses of the appellants (4th Defendants) case and thereafter entered judgment for the plaintiff (1st Respondent).
GROUND THREE
The learned judge erred in law when he held as follows: In a nutshell the defences of the 1st, 2nd & 4th Defendants are nothing but a sham in the face of the plaintiffs claims as constituted in this suit. Accordingly the 1st, 2nd 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants lack the vires, capacity and competence to pass any judgment as to the ownership of the disputed tanks. The entirety of the evidence in defence as adduced by all the defendants with the entirety of all submissions as contained in their respective final addresses is hereby adjudged ineffective, baseless, null void and of no effect.
GROUND FOUR
The trial judge erred in law where he held that in that respect observed that the dispute bearing civil in nature, the 4th defendant would have taken out a civil summons against the 3rd and 5th defendants towards the enforcement of his contract.
GROUND FIVE
The trial judge erred in law when he held that the 3rd & 5th defendants both in pleadings and evidence failed to prove that the 4 tanks belong to the 4th defendant.
GROUND SIX
The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.
The appellant in prosecution of this appeal filed his brief of argument on the 6th day of March, 2017. The said appellants brief of argument was settled by Chief Sir Ezengwa I. O. The 1st respondents brief of argument on the other hand was filed on the 29th day of March, 2017 and the same was prepared by O. I. Habeeb Esq.
For the determination of this appeal, the appellants counsel distilled two issues for resolution. The issues are reproduced below:
1. Given the fact that there was an independent separate and specific contract between the 4th & 5th respondents and the appellant for the construction of underground tanks, did the available evidence that the tanks forcefully removed by the 1st respondent were constructed for the appellant? (sic)
2. Was the learned trial judge not wrong to have focused on the defence rather than on the case presented by the plaintiff and in his dismissal of the defence to the prejudice of the appellant
The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand donated a sole issue for resolution in the determination of this appeal. The issue is reproduced below as follows:
WHETHER the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence led by the parties before reaching the conclusion to grant all the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent
The other respondents did not bother to file any brief of argument with regard to this appeal nor appear on the date of hearing. Nevertheless, they would be bound by the outcome of this appeal.
I have carefully considered the two sets of issues presented for resolution, and I am of the viewpoint that the issues as donated by the learned counsel for the appellant are more apt and have sufficiently subsumed the issue donated by the learned counsel for the respondent. The issues are thereby adopted by me for resolution towards the determination of this appeal.
ARGUMENT ON ISSUES.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued, that the appellant has by his pleadings and evidence established the fact that the four underground tanks which are the subject matter of this appeal belonged to him, and this fact was not disputed by the 1st respondent either in its pleadings or evidence, and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent cannot by address fill the gap left by the 1st respondent in his evidence. He referred us to the cases of OLORUNTOBA-OJO VS. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009) 6 KLR 10 G an OKOROMAKA VS. ODIRI (1995) 7 NWLR (PT. 408) 411.
He therefore submitted, that there is no way the 4 nos. underground tanks could have belonged to the 1st respondent since his evidence contradicts the evidence of the 5th respondent … There is no doubt that a contract existed between him and the 5th respondent but his own 5 nos. underground tanks which he paid for are future goods and non-existing at the time the appellants 4 nos. underground tanks which they first paid for in 2009 and 2011 were finally constructed see pages 90 – 94 of the record of appeal.
Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the appellant led credible and undeniable evidence that he contracted the 4th & 5th respondents to specifically construct four underground tanks which they were fully paid for and even had to lend the 5th respondent additional funds to enable him construct the tanks when the 5th respondent ran into difficulty with regard to construction of the tanks. He referred us to Exhibit E to prove that additional funds were lent to the 4th & 5th respondents. He also contended that the four tanks were initially taken by the 1st respondent forcefully contrary to what it stated in evidence. He referred us to the testimony of 5th respondent where he stated that the 1st respondent took possession of the tanks forcefully through the use of Mobile Police Force men. He referred us to pages 367 and 368 of the record of appeal.
Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that the trial Court failed to evaluate the evidence of the 3rd & 5th defendants in respect of the 4 nos. underground tanks actually when he held that they failed to prove by documents or any other means that the 4 nos. underground tanks in possession of the 1st & 2nd defendants (2nd & 3rd respondents) belong to the 4th defendant. The 4th & 5th respondents made it clear in their evidence that the 4 nos. underground tanks in possession of the Police (2nd respondent) belongs to the 4th defendant. He thereby urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant.
In reply, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent did a brief highlight of the material aspects of the pleadings filed by the parties and evidence led in support thereof as led by the parties. He submitted, that it is clear from the evidence led by the parties, that the 2nd respondent has used his office albeit unlawfully to constitute himself as the prosecutor and the judge in the matter passing verdict on the case reported to him to the effect that the 4 underground tanks belong to the appellant. Such is the manifestation of the partisanship of the 2nd respondent in the matter which said conduct has received deprecation by the appellate Courts …
He referred us to the case of AJAO VS. ASHIRU & ORS. (1973) NSCC 525 AT 533, LINES 20-25. The learned appellants counsel further argued, that the 2nd respondent’s unlawful and partial conduct was made more prominent when 2nd respondent admitted that he impounded the four underground tanks from the 1st respondent without any Court order, and he urged this Court not to accord credence or recognize an act of self-help as demonstrated by the appellant and 2nd respondent. He called in aid the cases of OKOCHI VS. ANIMKWOI (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851) 1 AT 28 and C. D. C. (NIG.) LTD. VS. SCOA (NIG.) LTD. (2007) 6 NWLR (PT. 1030) 300 AT 363.
Furthermore, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the 5th respondent admitted in evidence that the part of his testimony wherein he stated that the 1st respondent took possession through the use of force and aided by threats from accompanying mobile Police Officers were narrated to him by some of his boys and thereby constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence. He supported his stance with the case UNITY BANK PLC VS. BOUARI (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1086) 372 AT 406 and AJADI VS. AJIBOLA (2004) 16 NWLR (PT. 898) 91. He thereby urged us to resolve this issue against the appellant.
The focal point in respect of this issue or its core essence is to determine the question of whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the 1st respondent is the party entitled to the possession of the four underground tanks and granted all the reliefs sought by it. The law is well settled without the need to cite any authority, that the responsibility of admission of evidence and ascription of probative value to them is mainly within the domain of the trial Court. Thus, where a trial Court has effectively discharged its duty and/or responsibility and reached an informed decision or made a finding, an appellate Court is enjoined not to readily interfere with the decision of the trial Court or unnecessarily disturb its findings. See the cases of ONWUGBUFOR & ORS. VS. OKOYE & ORS. (1996) LPELR 2716 (SC); OKWEJIMINOR VS. GBAKEJI & ANOR. (2008) LPELR 2537 (SC); OYEWOLE VS. AKANDE & ANOR. (2009) LPELR 2879 (SC); AYUYA & ORS. VS. YONRIN & ORS. (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1254) 135 and a host of others.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the 1st respondent as well as the appellant contracted and fully paid the 4th & 5th respondents to construct underground tanks. While the appellant contracted the 4th & 5th respondents to construct 4 underground tanks, the 1st respondent contracted them to construct five. It is also not in dispute that 1st respondent took possession of the four underground tanks, the subject matter of this suit, but the possession was wrongly and unlawfully wrestled and taken away from it by the 2nd respondent. The appellant contended that the 1st respondent forcefully took possession of the underground tanks from the 4th & 5th respondents and this line of evidence was corroborated by the 5th respondent in his testimony. However, the 5th respondent admitted, that he was not around when the 1st respondent took possession of the underground tanks from his workshop and that he was informed by his workers that the 1st respondent came with some Police Officers to take possession of the four underground tanks and threatened to kill anyone who dares to stop them. And as a result of this threat, he ordered his workers/boys to allow the 1st respondent to carry the tanks. (See pages 367 & 368 of the record of appeal.)
It is not in doubt that the above line of testimony by the 5th respondent who testified as DW4 was purely hearsay evidence which is inadmissible. See the cases of BUHARI & ANOR. VS. OBASANJO & ORS. (2005) LPELR 815 (SC); OJO VS. GHARORO & ORS. (2006) LPELR 2383 (SC), (2006) 10 NWLR (PT. 987) 173 and Section 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011. In the instant case the testimony given by the 5th respondent on the way and manner in which the 1st respondent allegedly forcibly took possession of the underground tanks; as admitted by the said 5th respondent, was as a result of a narration given to him by a third party who was not called as a witness and thus amounted to inadmissible hearsay. Indeed, none of the 5th respondents workers or boys, who allegedly witnessed the event was called to give evidence, and thus, I am constrained to hold that the 5th respondent withheld or refused to call any of his workers who witnessed the event (if indeed it occurred), because he knew their evidence will be unfavourable to him. See Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The 1st respondent on his own part pleaded and led evidence to prove that he was invited to take possession of the underground tanks by the 4th respondent, which he did. (See paragraph 8 of the 1st respondents amended statement of claim and paragraph 11 of his statement on oath at page 46 and 51 of the record of appeal, respectively.) This piece of evidence was strengthened by the 5th respondent who testified as DW4 when he admitted under cross-examination as follows:
There were no inscriptions on the tanks removed by the plaintiff indicating that they belong to the 4th defendant. Based on the plaintiffs order and payment of money I was under the obligation to deliver same (that is, the underground tanks) to the plaintiff. (Bracket mine for clarification.)
Also, it was established in evidence that the 2nd respondent acted on his own and without being backed by any valid Court order, took it upon himself and played the appellants devils advocate when he mobilized Police officers under his command and seized/took possession of the four underground tanks in the lawful possession of the 1st respondent. This untoward act of the 2nd respondent is very shameful to say the least. He has demonstrated gross misuse of power and exposed his Officers and indeed the entire Police Force to ridicule by painting the force as bouncers, contract enforcers and errand boys for businessmen and presumably for a price.
The four underground tanks having been wrongfully and unlawfully wrestled from the 1st respondent; the 1st respondent is the rightful party that has established on credible evidence, to be entitled to the repossession of the four underground tanks from the 2nd respondent. Thus, I am in complete agreement with the decision of the lower Court wherein the Court found that the 1st respondent has established his claim on the preponderance of evidence and entered judgment in his favour. Therefore, this issue is resolved in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellant.
ISSUE 2
On this issue, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial judge was wrong to have focused on the defence and in the dismissal of the defence to the prejudice of the appellant. It is our humble submission and the law is that the trial Court in its judgment should begin by considering the plaintiffs case and examine whether the plaintiff has led evidence on all the material issue of facts which would if accepted after evaluation entitle him to succeed. He referred us to the case of SANUSI VS. AMEYOGUN (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 237) 527.
The learned appellants counsel further submitted, that the 1st respondent (plaintiff in the lower Court) has not proved his case convincingly to warrant the Court to enter judgment in his favour. The weakness of the appellants case (4th defendant) if any in this suit which touches on declaratory relief does not assist the 1st respondents (plaintiff) case”.
The 1st respondent therefore swims and sinks with its own case. He referred us to the cases of SANUSI VS. AMEYOGUN (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 237) 527; DANTATA VS. MOHAMMED (2000) 7 NWLR (PT. 664) 176 and DUMEZ NIG. LTD. VS. NWAKHOBA (2008) 18 NWLR) PT. 1119) 361 among others. The learned counsel thereby urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant.
In reply, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent stated that contrary to the contention of the learned appellants counsel, the trial Court began the evaluation of the evidence from the perspective of the case of the plaintiff first. The learned counsel submitted, that judgment writing is an art by itself that accommodates individual style and method. What is important is that the real issue in contention is properly appreciated and identified and the right decision is arrived at which was what transpired in the judgment of the trial Court, subject of the instant appeal. He supported his submission with the cases of USIOBAIFO VS. USIOBAIFO (2005) 3 NWLR (PT. 913) 665 AT 692; LEBILE VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES C. & S. (2003) 2 NWLR (PT. 804) 399 AT 422 and S. C. C. NIG. LTD VS. ANYA (2012) 9 NWLR (PT. 1305) 213.
In addition, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the trial Court in its judgment meticulously identified the evidence led by the parties at the trial Court, the issues raised by the written address of all the parties before proceeding to evaluate the evidence and resolved the issues that are central to the determination of the case. Again, he submitted, that it is not necessary for the trial Court to give separate opinion on all the issues raised provided it is shown that the Court had all those issues in mind before arriving at its findings which is the case herein. He called in aid the case of NOSPETCO OIL & GAS LTD. VS. OLORUNMIMBE (2012) 10 NWLR (PT. 1307) 115. He thereby urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the respondent.
Judgment writing is an art by itself. It is individualistic in nature. Thus, there is no particular way or style specified by law which is mandatory for a judge to adopt in writing his judgement. Each judge or justice (as the case may be) is entitled to adopt and/or create his writing style and approach in penning down his decisions. No judgment would be rendered a nullity or set aside, solely on the ground that the judge who wrote the judgment adopted a style which the complaining party regarded as being unfavourable to his/her cause; provided the essential elements of a good judgment are contained in the said written decision. That is, dispassionate consideration and/or evaluation of the evidence led by the parties and its marriage with the current position of the law. The decision of Court would not be rendered a nullity or liable to be set aside or impugned merely because the judge or justice (as the case may be), considered first the case of the defendant or accused person before considering that of the claimant or the prosecution, and vice versa. The most important consideration in respect of a judgment on appeal would be the correctness of the decision reached, in the light of the evidence led by the parties and the current position of the law. See the cases of ADEYEYE & ANOR. VS. AJIBOYE & ORS. (1987) LPELR 175 (SC), (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) 432; NWANKPU & ANOR. VS. EWULU & ORS. (1995) LPELR 2107 (SC) and TANKO VS NONGHA (2005) LPELR 11405 (CA).
In the instant case, contrary to the complaint raised by the appellant, the learned trial judge started off his judgment by setting out the case presented by the 1st respondent before considering the evidence led by the appellant in his defence. Also, the learned trial judge in the resolution of the issues adopted for determination considered the evidence led by the appellant and legal arguments proferred in support thereof side-by-side with that of the 1st respondent, before he eventually resolved the issues in favour of the 1st respondent. The learned trial judge was meticulous and displayed commendable and great dexterity in the evaluation of all the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties and in resolving the issues adopted for the determination of the case. I find no singular fault in the approach adopted by the learned trial judge worthy enough to warrant setting aside his decision as it pertains to this case. Therefore, this issue is also resolved in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellant.
The resolution of the issues adopted for resolution in the determination of this appeal in the manner stated above has led me to the informed decision that this appeal is lacking in merit and it is accordingly dismissed by me. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 28th day of April 2016 in Suit No. KDH/KAD/338/2012 together with the orders made therein are affirmed/confirmed by me.
Costs in the sum of N50,000.00 is hereby awarded against the appellant and in favour of the 1st respondent.
OBIETONBARA O. DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A.: I have read the draft Judgment of my learned brother MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA JCA. My lord has with admirable lucidity resolved the issues in this appeal. I really have nothing to add other than to say by way of an admonition to the police, that they must resist the temptation of wading into essentially civil matters. The police already have enough on their hands in the area of fighting crime, preventing crime, investigating crime, prosecuting criminals etc. Whenever matters of a purely civil nature are brought to them, they must politely refuse to be involved. All said, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. The Judgment of the lower Court is affirmed. I abide by my lord’s order as to costs.
JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Massoud Abdulrahman Oredola, JCA. He has meticulously dealt with all the relevant issues for determination in the appeal. I adopt his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is lacking in merit, and ought to be, and is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the lower Court including the orders made therein is hereby affirmed by me. I abide by my Lord’s order as to costs.
Appearances:
Chief Sir I.O. Ezengwa For Appellant(s)
O.I. Habeeb, Esq. for the 1st Respondent.
Other respondents were absent though on notice
For Respondent(s)
