CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v. OSCKO PETROLEUM LIMITED & ORS
(2018)LCN/12327(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 21st day of December, 2018
CA/A/704/2016
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS
“A garnishee proceeding is a judicial proceeding by a judgment creditor against a person in custody or possession of money belonging to the judgment debtor. The word “garnishee” is derived from the Norman French. It denotes one who is requested to “garnish”, that is furnish a creditor with the money to pay off a debt. It also denotes that the judgment – creditor has to obtain an order of Court that the debtor pays the judgment creditor by the process of attaching the debt once Order Nisi is served on the garnishee. See Sokoto State Govt. Vs Kamdex (Nig.) Ltd (2004) 9 NWLR (part 878) 345 CA, WEMA Bank Plc Vs Brastem – Sterr Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2010) LPELR 9166 (CA). The laws that govern Garnishee Proceedings are Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Judgments (Enforcement) Rules and Civil Procedure Rules of various High Courts in Nigeria. See UBA Plc Vs Chief C. E. Ubokulo and Ors (2009) LPELR – 8923 (CA)…The prior consent of the appropriate authority is therefore a pre-condition or condition precedent to instituting garnishees proceeding to attach money in custody of a public officer or “custodial legis” of a Court. See also Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Okefe (2015) LPELR 24825 (CA); Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Amao (2010) 16 NWLR (part 1219) 221; Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra), University of Calabar Teaching Hospital Vs Lizikon Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2017) LPELR-42339 (CA). ” PER ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING
“The principle of fair hearing is enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) under Section 33(1) which provides that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a Court or other Tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality. See also Akeredolu Vs Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (part 25) 710.” PER ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION
“It is trite law that the Court does not, and ought not to give judgment to an incompetent act if the condition precedent to assuming jurisdiction has not been complied with. See Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (2001) 46 WRN. The law is also settled that where a statute provides for a way of doing a specific act, any other way than the specific manner provided by that statute will be a nullity and invalid, see Rotimi Williams Akintoku Vs LPDC (2014) 13 NWLR (part 1423); Ojukwu Vs Kaine & 2 Ors (2000) 15 NWLR (part 691) 516 at 523 paragraphs F – G.” PER ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
ADAMU JAURO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA – Appellant(s)
AND
1. OSCKO PETRELEUM LTD
2. GAUSIYA OIL AND GAS LTD
3. THE HON. MINISTER FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
4. FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent(s)
ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja delivered in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/5578/11 by Hon. Justice Mwada Balami on the 19th September, 2016.
The fact herein that led to this appeal was that the 1st and 2nd Respondents as applicants before the lower Court sought from the lower by their motion ex parte dated 4th April, 2016 and filed on 5th April, 2016, the following orders:
1. “An order granting leave to issue an order nisi/Garnishee summons as in form 26 of the judgment Enforcement Rules against the Garnishee to show cause why the banking account(s) of the judgment Debtor, however maintained, should not be attached for the payment to the Garnishors, of the outstanding judgment debt in the sum of N69,000,000.00k (Sixty Nine Million Naira only) being compensation for the illegal demolition of the plaintiff’s property, N10,000,000.00k (Ten Million Naira only General Damages, and the sum of N5,000,000.00k (Five Million Naira) only as aggravated or exemplary damages as well as 112,000,000.00k (Two Million naira) only cost of the suit due from the judgment debtors to the judgment Creditor upon the judgment of this Honourable Court in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/5578/ 11 dated the 2nd day of July, 2015.
2. A Garnishee Order Nisi attaching the sum standing to the credit of the judgment debtors in its Account No. 3000054355 or any of its other account(s) with the Garnishee in satisfaction of the judgment debt in the sum of N69,000,000.00k (Sixty Nine Million Naira only) being compensation for the illegal demolition of the plaintiff’s property, N10,000,000.00k (Ten Million Naira only) General Damages, and the sum of N5,000, 000.00k (Five Million Naira) only as aggravated or suits standing against the Respondents in this proceeding.
3. A Garnishee Order Nisi attaching the sum of N500,000.00k (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) in satisfaction of the cost of this Garnishee Proceedings.
4. 10% Post judgment interest per annum on the judgment debt from 2/7/2015.
5. A Garnishee Order Nisi directing the Garnishee to appear an show cause why the Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made absolute.”
See pages 27 – 28 of the record of appeal.
On the 11th April, 2016, the lower Court granted all the prayers sought by the 1st and 2nd Respondents as contained in the ex parte motion.
Dissatisfied with the Garnishee Order Nisi granted in favour of the 1st & 2nd Respondents, the Appellant, 3rd and 4th Respondents filed separate motions on notice before the lower Court for an order to set aside the garnishee order nisi for failure of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to obtain the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation before instituting the garnishee proceedings. See pages 30 – 45 and pages 71 – 79 of the record of appeal. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed two distinct counter affidavits against the two respective motions. See pages 46 – 60 and pages 80 – 87 of the record of appeal. The Appellant further filed motion on notice before the lower Court seeking to discharge the Order Nisi granted by the lower Court. See pages 92 – 111 of the record of appeal. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed counter affidavit to the said motion. See pages 112 – 124 of the record of appeal.
On the 19th September, 2016, the learned trial judge delivered his ruling in respect of the Appellant’s, 3rd and 4th Respondent’s motion seeking to set aside the Garnishee Order Nisi, wherein the Court held that the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation is not required before it can grant an Order Nisi in cases of this nature. However, the lower Court failed to make pronouncement on the Appellant’s motion seeking to discharge the garnishee order nisi granted by the lower Court.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned ruling, the Appellant filed this appeal before the lower Court on 13th October, 2016. The notice of appeal contained three grounds of appeal. The reliefs sought by the Appellants are an order allowing the appeal in its entirety and setting aside the ruling of 19th September, 2016. See pages 158 – 160 of the record of appeal.
Upon the filing of the aforesaid notice of appeal, the record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to the Court on 13th December, 2016. The appellants brief of argument was thereafter filed. The said brief was settled by Handel Okoli dated 5th April, 2018 and deemed filed on 14th November, 2018. In their response to the Appellant’s appeal, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed notice of intention to concede to the appeal. The merit of this appeal will therefore be determined on the basis of the Appellant’s brief of argument alone.
The Appeal was heard on 14th November, 2018. Appellant was represented by Mr. C. O. Nneji who adopted the Appellant’s brief of argument and urged the Court to allow the appeal. Mr. H.E. Leonard who represented the 1st and 2nd Respondents notified the Court that he had filed a notice of intention not to contest the appeal on 2/11/2018, hence no brief was filed for 1st and 2nd and they are conceding to the appeal. M. A. Ashara Esq., who represented the 3rd and 4th Respondents also stated that the 3rd and 4th Respondents are not contesting the appeal; hence no brief has been filed on their behalf. Notwithstanding the fact that the Respondents have conceded to the appeal, a consideration of the appeal will be made on its merit based on the Appellant’s Brief. From the Appellant’s three grounds of appeal, its learned counsel distilled two issues for determination to wits:
i) “Whether the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation was not required before the issuance of the order nisi dated 11th April 2016 in this case in view of the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act and the decisions of this Court:
(a) Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Okefe (2015) LPELR – 24825)
(b) Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Alhaji Mohammed Kakuri LPELR 41468 (CA).
(c) Adebayo Lateef Sanni Vs Unity Bank Plc and Central Bank of Nigeria (CA/L/710/2015).
ii) Whether the Appellant was not denied its Constitutional right to fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) when its motion on notice dated 8th June, 2016 was disregarded and not considered by the Honourable Judge, in his Ruling of 19th September, 2016.
ISSUE ONE
In arguing this issue, learned counsel for the Appellant commenced his argument by referring the Court to Section 84(1) (2) and (3) (a) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. Relying on the above Section 84, he submits that the trial judge erred in law, when he held that the consent of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation is not required before an Order Nisi can be made as in this case, against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) being a public officer.
It was submitted that when a particular law or statute makes provision(s) on how a particular act is to be carried out, that act must be done in strict compliance with the provisions of the law and anything purported to have been done contrary to such provisions shall to the extent of such violations be rendered null and void. He referred to the case ofJoe SuraKatu Vs Housing Development Society Ltd (1981) 4 SC at page 28 and Ogbomor Vs The State (1985) 1 NWLR (part 2) at page 223.
It was further contended that the contention as to whether the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer within the meaning of Section 84 (1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act has been resolved in a number of cases. He referred to Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Okefe (2015) LPEL 24825; Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Ukpong (2006) 13 NWLR (part 998) 55; Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Hydro Air Pty Ltd (2014) 16 NWLR (part 1438) 48. Also referred was the case of Adebayo Lateef Sanni Vs Unity Bank Plc & Central Bank of Nigeria in Appeal No. CA/L/710/2015 delivered on the 10th day of March, 2017 where the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division re-affirmed the fact that the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer within the meaning and intendment of Section 84(1) of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
On the strength of the above authorities, learned counsel reiterated that the learned trial judge misdirected himself in law, when he reasoned in his ruling, that it is not the correct position of the law that the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation must be sought and obtained before commencement of Garnishee proceedings where the money sought to be attached is in custody or under the control of a Public officer, as in the instant case. He added that the learned trial judge also misdirected himself when he stated that the correct position of the law is to put the Attorney General of the Federation on notice of the said application. He argued that there is no legal authority to support this proposition. He submits further that assuming without so conceding that putting Attorney General of the Federation on notice only is the correct position of the law, it was not proved herein that the judgment creditors had given the Attorney General of the Federation such a notice. That there was no evidence upon which the lower Court could have relied to conclude that the Attorney General was put on notice.
It was further contended that the learned trial judge further misdirected himself when he reasoned in his ruling that Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act ousted the provision of Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), that gives judiciary its powers, in that Sheriffs and Civil Process Act being a subsidiary legislation cannot stand in the face of the Constitution. He referred to page 154 of the record. It was submitted that contrary to the finding of the lower Court, the intendment of Section 84(1) of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is not to rob the judiciary of its powers as it can always make such Order Nisi once the said consent is obtained by the judgment creditor. In concluding, he urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
A garnishee proceeding is a judicial proceeding by a judgment creditor against a person in custody or possession of money belonging to the judgment debtor. The word “garnishee” is derived from the Norman French. It denotes one who is requested to “garnish”, that is furnish a creditor with the money to pay off a debt. It also denotes that the judgment – creditor has to obtain an order of Court that the debtor pays the judgment creditor by the process of attaching the debt once Order Nisi is served on the garnishee. See Sokoto State Govt. Vs Kamdex (Nig.) Ltd (2004) 9 NWLR (part 878) 345 CA, WEMA Bank Plc Vs Brastem – Sterr Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2010) LPELR 9166 (CA).
The laws that govern Garnishee Proceedings are Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Judgments (Enforcement) Rules and Civil Procedure Rules of various High Courts in Nigeria. See UBA Plc Vs Chief C. E. Ubokulo and Ors (2009) LPELR – 8923 (CA). Section 84 (1) of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, provides:
“Where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodial Legis, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last preceding section unless consent of such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer in the case of money in the custody or control of a public officer or the Court in the case of money in custodial Legis, as the case may be. Section 84(3)
In this section, appropriate officer” means (a) in relation to money which is in custody of a public office who holds a public office in the public service of the Federal, the Attorney General of the Federation.”
In the case of Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra), the Court interpreted Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and emphasized the need of obtaining prior consent of the Attorney General before issuance of garnishee Order Nisi under Section 84 of the Act. It held, thus:
“The issue of constitutionality of requiring prior consent of the Attorney General before issuance of garnishee order nisi under Section 84 of the Sherriff and Civil Process Act is not new and has been raised and decided in some previous decision of this Court. These include:
1) Onjewu Vs Kogi Ministry of Commerce and Industry (2003) 10 NWLR (part 827) 40;
2) Government of Akwa Ibom State Vs Powercom (Nig) Ltd. (2004) 6 NWLR (part 868) 202.
These two cases are not considered by the trial judge.
In the two cases, this Court held that obtaining prior consent of the Attorney – General under Section 84 of the Sherriff’s and Civil Process Act is mandatory. In the case of Onjewu Vs kogi State Ministry of Commerce and Industry (2003) 10 NWLR (part 827) at 79 A – D Muntaka – Coomassie, JCA (as he then was) after considering Section 287 (3) of the 1999 Constitution and all the points canvassed as to the Constitutionality of the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act that the king can do no wrong, said.
“I hold that since the demand for the consent of the Attorney General of the state is sort of procedural and administrative in nature and it has not made any violence to the Constitution, it can be tolerated and accepted. I hold that the requirement of the consent or authorization/permission of the Attorney General of a State is necessary before the judgment of a High Court can be enforced. The provisions of Section 84(3) of the Sherriff and Civil Process Law could not be said to be inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That being a case this Court will have no reason to disturb the position taken by trial Court that failure of the judgment creditor to comply with the condition precedent of obtaining the consent of the Hon. Attorney General deprived that Court of the jurisdiction to hear the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and I so hold.”
Furthermore, in the cases of Onjewu Vs K.S.M.O & 1 (2003) FWLR (part 181) 1590 at 1615 paragraphs D G and Omenka Mathew Ode & Ors Vs Attorney General of Benue State & Ors (2011) LPELR – 4774 (CA), the Court held the view that no garnishee shall lie or be commenced against any government without the consent of the Attorney General, and Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Law Cap 407 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, which requires the consent of Attorney General before a Court could validly issue a garnishee order nisi against funds in the hands of a public officer was not inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution on the ground that such provision was to ensure sound financial administration, avoid embarrassment to the government and aimed at protecting public funds. Therefore, the requirement of consent is indispensable where the money is in custody of a public officer.
Having identified the requirement of Section 84 of the Act, the next issue for consideration is whether the Appellant is a public officer within the meaning of Section 84. In relation to this issue, as pointed earlier, consent of appropriate authorities is necessary if money is held by public officer in the service of the Federation or the State or Court as the case may be. See Section 84(1) (2) (3) (a) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. Section 318 of the Constitution of the Federation Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) defined the service of the Federation thus:
“1) In this Constitution, unless it is otherwise expressly provided or the context otherwise requires public service of the Federation means, the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation, and includes as
(e) Staff of any statutory corporation established by an Act of the National Assembly.”
Again, under Section 18 of the Interpretation Act, it is equally provided:
“(1) In an enactment, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say “public officer” means a member of the public service of the Federation within the meaning of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 or the Public Service of a State.”
In Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra), the Court categorized the 3rd Respondent as public officer, the Court was even specific when it held:
“When this provision is examined critically vis a vis the provision of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, it will be seen that funds in the coffers of the Central Bank of Nigeria are actually funds in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity. This is because the Central Bank of Nigeria is an artificial entity and it is the officials of the body that control the money or funds in the coffers of the entity.”
Hence, from the combined effect of the foregoing provisions of Section 84(1), (2) and (3) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (supra), Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, and Section 18 (1) of the Interpretation Act (supra), and the decision of the Court in the case of Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra), the Central Bank of Nigeria (Appellant) is a statutory corporation of the Federal Government of Nigeria established by an Act of the National Assembly to wit a public officer being a part of the public service of the Federation of Nigeria. Thus, where money liable to be attached by Garnishee Proceedings is in the custody or under the control of public officer (Appellant), or in “custodial legis” of a Court, as the case may be, the order nisi shall not be made under Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (supra), unless consent to such attachment is first and foremost sought and obtained from the appropriate public officer, that is Attorney General of the Federation or Attorney General of State, as the case may be.
The prior consent of the appropriate authority is therefore a pre-condition or condition precedent to instituting garnishees proceeding to attach money in custody of a public officer or “custodial legis” of a Court. See also Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Okefe (2015) LPELR 24825 (CA); Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Amao (2010) 16 NWLR (part 1219) 221; Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra), University of Calabar Teaching Hospital Vs Lizikon Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2017) LPELR-42339 (CA).
It is trite law that the Court does not, and ought not to give judgment to an incompetent act if the condition precedent to assuming jurisdiction has not been complied with. See Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (2001) 46 WRN. The law is also settled that where a statute provides for a way of doing a specific act, any other way than the specific manner provided by that statute will be a nullity and invalid, see Rotimi Williams Akintoku Vs LPDC (2014) 13 NWLR (part 1423); Ojukwu Vs Kaine & 2 Ors (2000) 15 NWLR (part 691) 516 at 523 paragraphs F – G.
In the instant case before instituting the garnishee proceedings against the Appellant, 3rd and 4th Respondents at the lower Court, the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not obtain consent of the Attorney General of the Federation as provided by Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. Therefore, the failure of the 1st and 2nd Respondent to obtain the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation made the whole Garnishee proceedings in the lower Court a nullity. Having said that, issue one is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
It is clear that from the resolution of this issue in favour of the Appellant, it has taken care the Appellant’s issue two as for the whole garnishee proceedings has been rendered a nullity, treating issue two will only amount to an academic exercise except that the Court ex abundant! cautela will proceed to treat the issue.
ISSUE TWO
In arguing this issue, learned counsel for the appellant first referred the Court to the proceedings of the lower Court on pages 45, 92 – 133, 141 and 146 – 155 of the record of appeal and submits that the ruling of the lower of 19th April 2016 did not peruse any of the processes filed by the appellant in Court and that amounted to a breach of Appellant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). He submits that where the right to fair hearing has been denied, the entire proceedings cannot be salvaged. In support reliance was placed to the cases of Uzuda Vs Ebigah (2009) 15 NWLR (part 1163) and page 1; Orugbo Vs Una (2002) 16 NWLR (part 792) at page 175; Tanko Vs UBA Plc (2010) 77 NWLR (part 1221) at page 80; UNTH MB Vs NNOLI (1994) 2 NWLR (part 363) at page 376 paragraph A- D; Ceekay Traders Ltd Vs General Motors Co. Ltd (1992) 2 NWLR (part 122) page 132.
It was opined by the learned counsel that the lower Court having overruled or disregarded their letter for adjournment and proceeded with the hearing of the case, and having deemed their written address as adopted, the Court should have gone ahead to consider their processes before it on the merit. He stated that the principles of natural justice is meant to ensure that no one is to be condemned, punished or deprived of property in any judicial proceeding unless he had an opportunity of being heard as held in the case of A.C.B. Plc Vs Losada (Nig) Ltd (1995) 7 NWLR (part 405) page 26 at pages 34 – 47 paragraph H.
In his final submission, counsel submits that on the authority of Adigun Vs Attorney General of Oyo State (1987) NWLR (part 53) page 678 that the entire proceedings leading to the ruling of 19th September, 2016 are null and void. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant, allow the appeal and set aside the ruling of the lower Court delivered on the 19th September, 2016.
The principle of fair hearing is enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) under Section 33(1) which provides that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a Court or other Tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality. See also Akeredolu Vs Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (part 25) 710.
It was the contention of the Appellant in the instant case that the lower failed to consider its application seeking to discharge the order nisi granted against it and as such it amounted to denial of its right to fair hearing. It is an elementary and fundamental principle of our administration of justice to hear all applications properly brought before our Courts. Accordingly, where an application is properly brought before the Court, the principle of fair hearing demands that it should be heard on its merit. See Nalsa & Team Asso. Vs NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (part 212) 65.
From the ruling of the lower Court it was not indicated that the Appellant’s motion was not properly filed, only that the lower Court neglected to consider it on its merit. This kind of mistake on the part of the lower Court was described by the Supreme Court as procedural irregularity which involved the infringement of the Constitutional right to fair hearing. See Okafor vs Attorney General Anambra(1991) 6 NWLR (part 2000) 659. It is well settled that any breach of the provisions of the fundamental right to fair hearing renders the act subsequent to such breach a nullity. See Okafor Vs Attorney General of Anambra (supra). In view of the foregoing, the proceedings conducted by the lower Court after denying the Appellant’s its right to fair hearing is null and void. On the above decision, issue two is also resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Consequent upon the resolutions of the two issues for determination in this appeal in favour of the appellant, the appeal has merit, same is hereby allowed. The ruling of the lower Court delivered by Hon. Justice Mwada Balami in Suit No. FCT/CV/5578/11 on 19th September, 2016 is hereby set aside.
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Adamu Jauro, JCA. I am in complete agreement with his reasoning and resolution of the issues raised by the parties.
I too allow the appeal and I abide by the consequential order as made in the lead judgment.
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my Learned brother, Lord Justice Adamu Jauro, JCA. I agree with the reasoning, conclusions and orders therein.
Appearances:
C. O. Nneji, Esq. For Appellant(s)
H. E. Leonard, Esq. with him, Chima Obi Iwuchukwu, Esq. for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
M. A. Ashara, Esq. for the 3rd and 4th Respondents.
For Respondent(s)
