CHIEF CHRISTIAN UBA v. SOUTHLAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED & ORS
(2019)LCN/12795(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 5th day of March, 2019
CA/A/742/M/2017(R)
RATIO
APPEAL: WHERE A PARTY SEEK LEAVE OF APPEAL
“See CHRISTIAN IWUAGWU VS. EMEZIE OKOROAFOR & ORS 2012 LPELR-20829 CA; FUNDUK ENGINEERING LTD VS. MCARTHUR & ORS 1996 LPELR-1291 SC. It is trite law that an Applicant seeking leave to appeal as an interested party must make detailed deposition in his affidavit in support of his application to show the following; a. His interest in the matter, b. Why he was not a party in the trial Court; and c. Good reasons for delay in filing the application. See the case of IBULUBO VS. TOMONIARO 2017 6 NWLR PT.1562 PG 426 AT 438.” PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ABDU ABOKI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADAMU JAURO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CHIEF CHRISTIAN UBA – Appellant(s)
AND
1. SOUTHLAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED
2. TAIWO ABRAHAM OJO
3. HON. MINISTER FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
4. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent(s)
ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling):
The Applicant filed this motion on 27/10/2017, seeking the following orders;
1. An order of this Court granting the Applicant leave to appeal as a person having interest in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents as Plaintiffs against the 3rd and 4th Respondents as Defendants before the High Court of Justice of the FCT, Abuja and as a person affected by an having interest in the judgment delivered on 11th March, 2016 by Hon. Justice V.B. Ashi in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015.
2. An order of this Court for extension of time and/or extending time within which the Applicant as a person having interest in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 and as a person affected by and having interest in the judgment delivered on 11th March, 2016 by Hon. Justice V.B. Ashi in the said suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 can apply for leave to appeal the said judgment.
3. An order of this Court for extension of time and/or extending time within which the Applicant as a person having interest in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 and as a person affected by and having interest in the judgment delivered on 11th march, 2016 by Hon. Justice V.B. Ashi, can seek leave to appeal against the said judgment.
4. An order of this Court granting the applicant as a person having interest in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 and as a person affected by and interested in the judgment delivered on 11th march, 2016 by Hon. Justice V.B. Ashi of the FCT High Court in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015, leave to appeal against the said judgment.
5. An order of this Court for extension of time and/or extending time within which the Applicant as a person having interest in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 and as a person affected by and having interest in the judgment delivered on 11th March, 2016 by Hon. Justice V.B. Ashi of the High Court of justice, FCT, Abuja, can file his notice and grounds of appeal, against the said judgment.
The application was founded on 14 main grounds, namely:
1. The Applicant is in lawful custody of the original title documents to and covering the property which is the subject of the 11th March, 2016 judgment.
2. The Applicant has the, and is in physical, possession of the property which is the subject of the 11th March, 2016 judgment.
3. The Applicant acquired the property which is the subject of the 11th March, 2016 judgment for valuable consideration and has the necessary minister’s consent in his favour.
4. The Applicant in view of the foregoing and above grounds 1-3 is a necessary party to the suit for just, final and effective determination of same.
5. That the Applicant was not made a party to and in the said suit despite the foregoing grounds 1-4.
6. That the said 11th March, 2016 judgment was not on the merit but default and without jurisdiction.
7. That fact were misrepresented and suppressed in obtaining the judgment.
8. That by the time the Applicant became aware of the default judgment, time had elapsed to appeal.
9. The Applicant is ready to contest the suit.
10. The Applicant’s application to set aside the judgment was refused by the trial Court.
11. The judgment affects the interest of the Applicant who is in custody of the original title documents and physical possession of the property, the subject of the judgment.
12. The Applicant was not heard at all nor given an opportunity to be heard at all.
13. The leave of Court is required by the Applicant to appeal.
14. This application is in the interest of justice, equity and the suit to be heard on the merit.
The application was supported by an affidavit of 37 paragraphs, deposed to by the Applicant himself, with 13 exhibits attached and marked as Exhibit A1-A13. The Applicant had also attached a written address to the motion, filed on 22/10/2018.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents had also filed their counter affidavit of 31 paragraphs, deposed to by one KAZEEM A. OYINWOLA of Gate Way Plaza, Plot 208 Zakariyya Maimalari Road, off Herbert Macaulay Way, Central Business District, Abuja, 1 exhibit attached an marked as KO-1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents also filed their written address against the applicant’s motion on 26/10/2018.
The Applicant also filed reply on points of law on 31st October, 2018. Learned Counsel to the Applicant distilled a lone issue for determination of this application, thus;
Whether the Honourable Court ought to grant the Applicant’s application to wit: motion on notice dated and filed 271 October, 2018 considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case?
Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents also distilled a lone issue for determination thus;
Whether the Applicant has placed sufficient materials before this Honourable Court to warrant the grant of his application?
The lone issue distilled by the Applicant is adopted in the determination of this application.
Learned Counsel to the Applicant submitted that, flowing from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Applicant’s right of appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Trial Court in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 as a person having an interest in the matter is constitutionally recognized and provided for, upon the Applicant’s obtaining of the leave of this Court.
He maintained that the Applicant’s application is in exercise of his constitutional right as guaranteed by Section 243(a) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). He referred the Court to the cases of; CHUKWU VS. INEC [2014] ALL FWLR PART 741 PAGE 1531, EZENWOSU VS. NGONADI [1988] 3 NWLR PART 81 PAGE 163.
Learned Counsel contended that by the combined reading of the provisions of Section 24(2), (4) Court of Appeal Act 2004 and Section 243(a) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), coupled with the Supreme Court decision in CHUKWU VS. INEC (2014) ALL FWLR PT. 741 PG. 1531 and EZENWOSU VS NGONADI (1988) 3 NWLR PT. 81 PG. 163 the Applicant’s 5 major prayers and the omnibus prayer as contained in his application before this Court, are in good standing and satisfy the requirements of the law. He urged the Court to so hold.
He maintained that the interest of the Applicant in the 11th March 2016 judgment of the Trial Court in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/CV/411/2015 which he seeks the leave of this Court to appeal against, is not a general interest or an indirect interest, but rather a direct interest by which the Applicant has been wrongfully denied and prejudicially deprived of his interest, and right to his property, being the subject matter and res of the 11th March, 2016 judgment.
Learned Counsel to the Applicant submitted that a person having an interest in the matter is synonymous with a person aggrieved. He referred this Court to NGIGE VS. OBI (2006) ALL FWLR PT. 330 PG. 1041.
He contended that the Applicant is an aggrieved person who has wrongfully been deprived of his title and interest in the subject property and Res (i.e. Plot 2693B Colorado Street, Maitama District, Abuja, covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. 660uw-17355-5b69r-fa50u-10), by virtue of the said 11th March 2016 judgment of the lower Court.
Learned Counsel submitted that, a careful reading and critical perusal of the 1st and 2nd Respondents (as 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs) originating process i.e. Exhibit A1 in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 will reveal the following:-
i. That Plot No. 2693B Colorado Street, Maitama District, Abuja, covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. 660uw-17355-5b69r-fa50u-10, was the subject property and res of the said Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4111/2015.
ii. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents (as 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs) wanted the interest in the said subject property/res to be assigned and registered in the name of the 1st Respondent (1st Plaintiff) by the 3rd and 4th Respondents (as 1st and 2nd Defendants).
iii. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents (as 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs) faced a challenge in the registration process of the interest and deed of assignment in favour of the 1st Respondent (1st Plaintiff) in the said subject property/res.
iv. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents (1st and 2nd Plaintiffs) knew that the reason for their challenge to wit non-registration of the 1st Respondent’s (1st Plaintiff) interest and deed of assignment in the subject property/res was because the 3rd and 4th Respondents (1st and 2nd Defendants) were already “processing another application for assignment in respect of the same subject property”.
v. That all the Respondents to wit: 1st and 2nd Respondents (1st and 2nd Plaintiffs) and 3rd and 4th Respondents (1st and 2nd Defendants) without any doubt, confusion or equivocation, were aware and knew at every material time that the other application being processed for the assignment of; and interest in; the subject property/res was the application of Chief Christian Uba, the applicant before this Court.
Learned counsel contended that the evidence on record show and reveal that the Applicant (i.e. Chief Christian Uba) clearly and undoubtedly has an obvious interest in the subject property, res in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4111/2015, as revealed and can be gathered from the originating process (es) filed and the evidence (i.e. affidavit and exhibits) presented before the lower Court.
He maintained that the said Applicant’s interest in the subject property/res in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/411/2015 was to the knowledge of the learned trial Judge. He referred the Court to Exhibit A2 to this application (at page 4 paragraph 7 to page 5 paragraph 1 of the said 11th March, 2016 judgment) wherein the learned trial Judge himself mentioned the applicant’s interest vis-a-vis the subject properly/res,
Learned Counsel insisted that looking at the facts and circumstances of this case as evidenced before the trial Court; it is a matter in which the applicant (i.e. Chief Christian Uba) should have been joined as a party, afortiori, a necessary party. He referred the Court to the cases of; AZUBUIKE VS P.D.P [2014] ALL FWLR PT 732 Pg 1615, BAKARE VS AJOSE ADEOGUN [2014] ALL FWLR PT. 737 Pg 612.
Learned Counsel to the Applicant submitted that if their submission and argument is correct and right, then the Applicant, Chief Christian Uba, has passed the test as pronounced by this Court in the case of NGIGE VS. OBI (Supra), and consequently, he is deserving of a favourable exercise of the discretion of this Court in granting his application for leave to appeal and extension of time within which to appeal against the 11th March, 2016 judgment of the FCT High Court Abuja. He urged the Court to so hold and to grant this application. He referred the Court to the cases of;STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC VS L.G. CAPITAL LTD [2018] ALL FWLR PT 927 Pg 171, OSAYOMI VS GOV. EKITI STATE [2014] ALL FWLR PT 751 Pg 1573.
He maintained that assuming but without conceding that the they are wrong in their argument, a careful reading of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ counter-affidavit will reveal that paragraphs 4,7,9,10,14,15,16,19,20,22,23,24,27,29, and 30 of the said counter-affidavit contravene the provision of Section 115 (2) Evidence Act 2011 for being legal argument(s) and/or legal conclusion(s) which should not be contained in an affidavit. He therefore urged the Court to strike out or discountenance those paragraphs. He referred the Court to the cases of; OSAYOMI VS. GOV. EKITI STATE [2014] ALL FWLR PT 751 PG 1573, STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC VS L.G. CAPITAL LTD [2018] ALL FWLR PT 927 PG 171, A.G. ANAMBRA STATE VS. A.G. FEDERATION [2007] ALL FWLR PT 379 PG 121.
He contended that if the above mentioned paragraphs of the 1st and 2nd Respondents counter affidavits are struck out, the remaining paragraphs would be inadequate and grossly deficit in response/answer to the Applicant’s affidavit in support of his application before this Court. He urged the Court to so hold.
In conclusion, the Applicant’s counsel most humbly and respectfully urged this Court to grant the applicant’s application considering the facts and circumstances of this case, to enable him ventilate his complaint and dissatisfaction to the 11th March, 2016 judgment of the FCT High Court, Abuja, delivered by V. B. Ashi J. in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4111/2015.
In response, Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondent submitted that the Applicant is not a necessary party to the suit decided by the Trial Court and that he has failed/neglected to place sufficient materials before this Court to warrant the grant of his application for leave to appeal as an interested party.
He maintained that a necessary party has been defined in the case of PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (NIG.) LTD V J.B. OLANDEEN INTERNATIONAL & 4 ORS. (2010) LPELR-2902 (SC) as a party whose presence is necessary or essential for the effective and complete determination of the claim before the Court. He also referred the Court to the cases of; GREEN V, GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (61) 481; RE: MOGAJI (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 19) 579.
He contended that it can be deduced from the above that a necessary party is such a party whose presence or involvement in the matter is not only necessary but crucial and unavoidable for the effective, effectual, exhaustive, complete and comprehensive adjudication of all questions raised in a cause or matter. Such a party is one who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, but also in whose absence, the proceeding cannot be fairly dealt with. In other words, the question to be settled in the action between the existing parties in the suit must be a question which cannot be properly settles unless they are parties to the action instituted by the Plaintiff.
He contended that the Applicant herein is not a necessary party with reference to the claim of the 1st and 2nd Respondents before the trial Court.
In order to further buttress the point that the questions submitted for determination before the trial Court does not center on ownership, Learned Counsel reproduced the questions submitted for determination before the Trial Court as can be seen from Exhibit A1 attached to the Applicant’s affidavit. He contended that the questions submitted for the determination of the Trial Court centered on the refusal of the 3rd and 4th Respondents to register a Deed of Assignment duly executed by the 2nd Respondent in favour of the 1st Respondent and not on the ownership of land as erroneously submitted by the Applicant.
Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted that the position of the Applicant herein who has concocted lies to the effect that he is the beneficial owner of the subject property is not supported by any shred of evidence before this Court, he urged the Court to so hold and referred the court to the case of AZUBUIKE VS. PDP (2014) ALL FWLR PT. 732 PG. 1651 AT 1661.
He insisted that for this Court to grant the Applicant leave to appeal as an interested party, the Applicant must have shown a genuine interest in the decision of the trial Court as it has been held in the case of CHUKWU V. INEC (2014) ALL FWLR (741) 1531 @ 1554.
Learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicant has not placed sufficient materials before this Honourable Court to warrant the grant of his application.
He argued that since the Applicant’s application centers on declaration of title to a parcel of land known as Plot 2693B Colorado Street, Maitama District, Abuja, the burden is on the Applicant to establish his title to the said land and the various ways by which a party may prove title to land has been laid down in various decisions of the Courts. He referred the Court to the cases of; IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC. 227; BABATUNDE V. OLATEJU (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 893)1206 @ 1232.
He submitted that the only document relied upon by the Applicant to indicate his interest in the land in issue is Exhibit A10 which is an alleged approval of consent to assign the said plot of land to the Applicant. Learned Counsel argued that this letter cannot be evidence of title known to law.
He emphasized that the Applicant has not produced any evidence or laid any foundation as to how he obtained the said letter thereby leaving some questions unanswered.
Learned Counsel contended that the evidence before the Court is that the 2nd Respondent sold the subject property to 1st Respondent and not one Dr. Emmannuel Andy Uba nor the Applicant. He argued therefore, that the said Dr. Emmannuel Andy Uba cannot validly transfer any interest in the subject property to any 3rd party. It is also submitted that the 1st Respondent is a corporate body duly registered under the Companies and Allied matters Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and to that extent its management and activities is regulated by the statute.
He argued that the Applicant made a heavy weather of a letter dated 26th February, 2015 wherein the 2nd Respondent informed the Director of Lands that his attention has been drawn to the fact that one Mr. Christian Uba (the Applicant herein) has presented some documents purportedly signed by him (2nd Respondent) in respect of the land in issue. But the Applicant according to the Counsel has failed to understand that the said letter was written when the 2nd Respondent was shown a copy of Exhibit Ala. In furtherance of the said letter, the 2nd Respondent even went ahead to depose to an affidavit at the Supreme Court to the fact that he has assigned his interest in the subject property to the 1st Respondent herein, and not the Applicant.
He maintained that as far as the 1st and 2nd Respondents are concerned, the Applicant does not exist at all as it is evident from all the documents attached as exhibits by the Applicant that all the title documents on the land in issue are in the name of the 2nd Respondent and that he (2nd Respondent) has executed a Deed of Assignment in favour of the 1st Respondent, thereby assigning his interest on the said land to the 1st Respondent.
Learned counsel contended that since the Applicant claimed to have purchased the said land from Mr. Emmanuel Andy Uba what he ought to have done is to institute a suit against the said Mr. Emmanuel Andy Uba.
He submitted further that the Applicant having concealed and concocted material facts and misrepresented certain facts before this Court, would not be entitled to grant of this application especially when there is no legal right accrued whatsoever in his favour. He insisted that the Applicant has no interest whatsoever in the subject property to warrant the grant of his application.
He urged the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s application.
In the Applicant’s reply on point of law, the Applicant’s Counsel submitted that it is settled law that a party’s submission not responded to, contested or countered by the opponent is deemed admitted by that opponent. He referred the Court to cases of;
ADENIRAN VS. IBRA [2014] ALL FWLR PT. 720 PG 1302,
DONBRAYE VS. PREYOR [2015] ALL FWLR PT 774 PG 127,
AKANBI VS. ALATEDE NIG LTD [2000] ALL FWLR PT 11 PG 1928, OKONGWU VS. NNPC [1989) 4 NWLR PT 115 PG 296.
He maintained that a perusal of the 1st and 2nd Respondents written address will reveal that the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not counter, contest, respond to, reply to and/or answer to some of the Applicant’s submissions/argument.
He contended that the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who opposed the Applicant’s application, having not countered, contested, responded to, replied to and/or answered some of the Applicant’s submissions, those uncountered submissions are deemed to have been admitted. He urged the Court to so hold and grant the Applicant’s application.
Learned Counsel for the applicant maintained that a careful reading of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ counsel’s submission/argument in their written address will reveal that they relate to the merit or otherwise of the substantive suit vis-a-vis the applicant, which is not what this Court is to decide, determine or pronounce on at this stage of the application/proceeding. He referred the court to the cases of;
PROCTER AND GAMBLE NIG LTD VS. NWANNA TRADING STORES LIMITED [2004] ALL FWLR PT 205 PG321,
FED. HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. KALEJAIYE [2011] ALL FWLR PT. 562 PG 1633,
BAKARE VS. AJOSE-ADEOGUN [2014] ALL FWLR PT 737 Pg 611.
I have observed that a careful reading of the arguments of Counsel to both parties in their written address in support of this application revealed that some of these submissions relate to the merit or otherwise of the substantive suit vis-a-vis the applicant, which is not what this Court is to decide.
It has been stated, repeatedly, that one who applies for leave to appeal, as interested party does not need extension of time to seek leave to appeal. This is because time does not run against him, upon coming to know of the judgment, to appeal against him, and having not yet been a party to the said suit, he seeks to contest the judgment, he cannot in my view be questioned for not bringing the appeal within 90 days from the date of the delivery of the judgment. See the case of IN RE- VS MADAKI (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 459) PG. 153, wherein the Supreme Court held thus;
“Neither the Constitution not the Court of Appeal Act or Court of Appeal Rules prescribe any period within which an interested party may bring application for leave to appeal as a person having an interest in the matter.”
Therefore, it is a wrong procedure, for a person to apply for extension of time to seek leave to appeal, when he seeks to appeal, as an interested party. The Applicant in my view does not need to include in his application, a prayer for extension of time to seek leave to appeal. What he actually needs, is for leave of Court to appeal, as an interested party, in which case he must convince the appellate Court of his interest in the judgment he seeks to appeal against. See CHRISTIAN IWUAGWU VS. EMEZIE OKOROAFOR & ORS 2012 LPELR-20829 CA; FUNDUK ENGINEERING LTD VS. MCARTHUR & ORS 1996 LPELR-1291 SC.
It is trite law that an Applicant seeking leave to appeal as an interested party must make detailed deposition in his affidavit in support of his application to show the following;
a. His interest in the matter,
b. Why he was not a party in the trial Court; and
c. Good reasons for delay in filing the application.
See the case of IBULUBO VS. TOMONIARO 2017 6 NWLR PT.1562 PG 426 AT 438.
In the case of OGEMBE VS USMAN & ORS 2011 LPELR-8855 SC, the Supreme Court stated the important requirements where a party seeks for leave to appeal as an interested party thus;
“One of the requirements, where a party seeks leave to appeal as an interested party, is that he ought to annex to his application a proposed notice of appeal.
This is to assist the appellate Court in the consideration of the grounds of appeal to find whether the proposed grounds of the appeal are substantial and arguable.”
Also in RE-APEH (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1576) PG. 252 AT 302-303 the Supreme Court Per PETER-ODILI JSC stated the principles guiding application to appeal as party interested thus;
“The general principles which the Court is enjoined to take into consideration for the grant of an application for leave to appeal as party interested are as follows;
a. Are the applicants parties interested in this case whose interest need be protected?
b. Do applicants have good reasons for not appealing within time?
c. Is the proposed notice and grounds of appeal substantial and arguable grounds of appeal?
d. Are the applicants not entitled to exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal?”
The principles above set out cannot however exist in vacuo, as the competence of the application must be present?”
The interest which will support an application for leave to appeal as interested party must be genuine and legally recognizable interest in respect of a decision which prejudicially affects such person. And for a person to qualify as a person interested, the Applicant must show not only that he is a person having interest in the matter but also that the order or judgment of the Court below which he is seeking leave to appeal against prejudicially affects his interest. See RE: ABDULLAHI (2018) LPELR-45202 (SC).
It is my view that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements to be allowed to appeal as interested party in this case. In paragraphs 6 and 12 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the originating summons, the Applicant averred that the original title documents are in his lawful custody and that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were aware of the Minister’s approval and the assignment in his favour.
In paragraph 20 of the affidavit in support of the Applicant’s application, the Applicant went further to say that he acquired the subject property for valuable consideration furnished to the Managing Director of the 1st Respondent. As rightly held by the Trial Court, in order to convince the Court that there was such conveyance to him by the 1st Respondent, the Applicant ought to exhibit, at least a photocopy of the conveyance of the title to him by the 1st Respondent.
The Trial Court in its judgment held thus;
“…He deposed that he furnished the MD/CEO of southland with valuable consideration. One would have expected to see evidence of this, not for the purpose of an all-time proof but as a means of persuading the Court to believe that he truly had legitimate transaction?. Secondly, Exhibit B01 & B02, the letter of offer to which is attached photocopies of receipt of payment, as well as the C of O over the res, all bears the name of the 2nd plaintiff. There is no explanation as to how these documents came into possession of Southland, which in turn gave it to him through its MD/CEO… Thirdly I have observed that all the receipts of payment for varied purposes in respect of the res bears the name of TAIWO and not Chief Chris Uba. There is nothing to explain why the payments are not in the name of the applicant who claimed in paragraph 8 of his affidavit in support of the motion No. M/9994/16 he paid the requisite sum of about N9.2million naira and N4 million for consent to assigned, registration of assignment etc… Finally, I have also closely scrutinized Exhibit 803, a copy of the so called approval of consent to assign the res to the applicant Chief Chris Uba. I can see the name of the law firm of learned counsel to the applicant hereof- Bola Olotu & Co., as the person, care of whom the letter to Taiwo was addressed. This discovery has left me more confused because up till now I cannot say how this came about, as the applicant has failed to offer an explanation of this fact in his affidavit in support?.'”
I have earlier said that for the Applicant to succeed he must show that he has an interest and the interest must be genuine and legally recognizable interest in respect of a decision which prejudicially affects him. From all what I have above, the Applicant has failed to show a genuine and legally recognizable interest to warrant the grant of this application.
Also, as can be gleaned from the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ suit filed at the Trial Court, the main question posed by the Plaintiffs for determination in their originating summons is whether the Defendants (3rd and 4th Respondents) are entitled to register and keep record of the deed of assignment, executed by the 2nd Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Plaintiff, which the Trial Court answered in the affirmative. I cannot see how this order of the Court below which the Applicant is seeking leave to appeal against prejudicially affect his interest, if any.
Furthermore, I have also carefully perused the proposed grounds of appeal i.e. Exhibit A12 attached to the affidavit in support of the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal as party interested. It is my view that the grounds of appeal proposed by the applicant have not demonstrated any reasonable and arguable issue of law to sustain the leave for appeal sought by the applicant.
The application is hereby refused. There shall be no order as to costs.
ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.: I was opportuned to read in draft the ruling just delivered by my learned brother, Abdu Aboki, PJCA. I am at one with the reasoning and conclusion therein to the effect that the application is lacking in merit.
I adopt the ruling as mine in refusing the application. I abide by all consequential orders made.
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my Learned brother, LORD JUSTICE ABDU ABOKI, PJCA. I agree with the reasoning, conclusions and orders therein.
Appearances:
Bola Olotu with him, Karina WilliamsFor Appellant(s)
Tairu Adebayo with him, Kazeem Oyinwola for the 1st & 2nd Respondent.
3rd & 4th Respondent absent and unrepresentedFor Respondent(s)
