CHIEF EMMANUEL VIASHIMA & ANOR v. AONDO DURA CHRIS
(2019)LCN/13265(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 16th day of May, 2019
CA/MK/209/2018
RATIO
CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFINITION
It is the law that a cause of action is the fact or set of facts which establishes or gives rise to a right of action and that the factual situation which gives a person the right to judicial relief. See: AG Federation V AG Abia State (2001) 7 SC 32; Egbe V Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1; & Thomas V Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669.PER JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.
CAUSE OF ACTION: DOCUMENTS THAT HELP COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION
Since the law is that it is the Writ of summons and Statement of Claim that a Court should examine to determine the cause of action in the suit before it and to determine its jurisdiction, I am of the view that the lower Court was right when it held that a proper cause of action was disclosed in the Further Amended Statement of Claim of the Respondent.PER JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1.CHIEF EMMANUEL VIASHIMA
(Attorney to Dr. Iorwaese Viashima)
2. LONDON LINE LTD – Appellant(s)
AND
AONDO DURA CHRIS – Respondent(s)
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an interlocutory Appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Justice, Benue State holden at Makurdi delivered on 16-08-18, Coram: Igoche, J. Therein, the Appellants? application to have the counter-claim of the Respondent dismissed for want of jurisdiction was refused. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 28-08-18 wherein he complained on two grounds.
A brief summary of the facts leading to the Appeal is as follows: The Appellants at the outset instituted a suit before the Benue State High Court, Makurdi against the Respondent in Suit no: MHC/294/2011 claiming the land in dispute. The Respondent disputed the claim and promptly filed a defence thereto in addition to a counter-claim against the erstwhile Plaintiffs, now Appellants. The Plaintiffs in response filed a defence to the counter-claim. Subsequently, at the hearing of the suit the claim of the Appellants was dismissed, but the counter-claim of the Respondent survived. Therefore, the counter-claimant (now Respondent) proceeded to prove his counter-claim.
1
After the Respondent had adduced evidence in proof of the counter-claim and before Appellants adduced evidence in defence thereto, they (i.e. the Appellants) filed a motion on notice wherein they challenged the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the counter-claim. Their contention was that the Respondent had proceeded against the wrong parties in the counter-claim and that there was no reasonable cause of action.
The basis of their application was that since the name of Dr. Iorwuese Viashima from whom the Respondent claimed to have bought the land, had been struck out, the proper parties were not before the Court and so the suit was not properly constituted without him.
They contended that in the course of the proceedings, the Respondent had sought the leave of Court to join Dr. Iorwuese Viashima, the purported donor of a Power of Attorney to the Appellants, as a party. The application was granted and he was joined. However, his name was later removed from the proceedings on the application of the Respondent. It was therefore contended that the suit was not properly constituted without Dr. Viashima as a party.
2
At the hearing of the Appeal on 04-03-19, I.A. Ututu Esq. moved and argued a preliminary objection wherein he challenged the competence of the Appeal. The Notice of Preliminary objection is dated 07-01-19 and filed on 21-02-19. The grounds for the objection are as set out in the Notice. Learned Counsel adopted the arguments on the objection which are incorporated at pages 2 to 4 of the Respondent?s Brief of argument filed on 06-02-18. Counsel urged the Court to uphold the objection and strike out the Appeal. In response to arguments on the objection, S.A. Akpehe Esq. learned Counsel for the Appellants, relied on his submissions at pages 1 and 2 of the Appellants? Reply Brief (dated and filed on 14-12-18) in urging the Court to overrule the objection.
?After both parties had argued the Notice of objection, they proceeded to argue the substantive Appeal. Akpehe Esq. adopted the Appellants? Brief of argument dated and filed 15-10-18 as well as the Appellant?s Reply Brief of argument filed on 14-12-18, in urging the Court to allow the Appeal; while Ututu, Esq. also adopted the Respondent?s Brief of argument filed on 06-11-18, in urging the Court to dismiss the
3
Appeal with costs. Since the objection raised is on ground of jurisdiction, it will be attended to first.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the Appeal is an interlocutory Appeal filed by the Appellants against the Ruling of the lower Court in Motion No. MHC/947M/2018, wherein, the Appellants had sought for: an order striking out the suit on the ground that the suit is incompetent having been brought against the wrong parties; declining jurisdiction to entertain suit same being improperly constituted; an order further dismissing and an order of non-suit of the Plaintiff.
Counsel submits that prior to this motion the Appellants had actively participated in the proceedings by filing a defence to the counter-claim and had therefore joined issues with the Respondent. The Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellants relate to issues of jurisdiction and against the award of costs in the pending proceedings before the lower Court. It is argued that the grounds of appeal are therefore grounds of mixed law and fact for which leave of Court was required.
?It is also argued that the Appeal being against an
4
interlocutory decision, the Appellants ought to have sought the leave of Court before filing it. Having failed to do so, the Notice of Appeal is incompetent. Counsel therefore submits that since the condition precedent for the institution of the Appeal has not been met, the Appeal should be struck out.
Reliance is placed on Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act (2010 Amendments); Section 241 of The Constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria 1999 (as altered); Iwueke V Imo Broadcasting Corporation (2005) 10 SCNJ 35; Ekanam Ekpo Otu V ACB (2008) 1 SCNJ 189; NAF V Shekete (2002) 12 SCNJ 35; Nwadike V Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718; Savannah Bank V Kyentu (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 536) 41; Ardo V Ardo (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 571) 700; UTB V Odofi (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 296; & REAN V Anumnu (2003)6 NWLR (Pt. 815) 52.
In response learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants do not need the leave of Court to file an appeal against the Ruling of the lower Court delivered on 16-08-18 because the Appeal touches on the issue of the jurisdiction of the lower Court to continue with further proceedings in the suit. He argues that the issue of
5
jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court. Counsel therefore submits that the leave of Court is not required before jurisdictional issues can be raised. Reliance is placed on Min. Works & Housing v Shittu (2007)16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 351; State V Onagorowa (1992) 2 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 1 at 308, per Belgore, JSC, (as he then was); & Section 241(1-2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
It is further submitted that Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act (2010 Amendments) cannot override the provision of the Constitution, more so that the leave of Court is not mandatorily required before jurisdictional issues can be raised. The Court is therefore urged to overrule the preliminary objection.
Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Indeed, as rightly submitted by the Appellants, jurisdiction is the live-wire of a Court, as no Court can entertain a matter where it lacks the jurisdiction to do so. In addition, it is correct to state that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even for the first time before this Court or the Supreme Court.
6
See Utomudo V Military Gov, Bendel State (2014) LPELR-22880(SC) 69; Amale V Sokoto LG (2012) LPELR-7842(SC) 23; Musa V AG Taraba (2014) LPELR-24183(CA) 19; Molegbemi V Ajayi (2011) LPELR-4501(CA) 41; Abubakar V Waziri (2008) LPELR-54(SC) 22; Alamieyeseigha V CJN (2004) LPELR-5699(CA) 16; & ACB V Obmiami Brick & Stone (1993) LPELR-206(SC) 27.
However, it is always necessary for the Court to look at the substance of the grounds of appeal rather than its classification by an Appellant in determining whether the grounds raise an issue of jurisdiction, a question of law or facts or mixed law and facts. Where the issue raised in a ground of appeal is one of misdirection of the law to facts proved or admitted, the issue is a question of law. Where the question raised requires an issue of the evaluation of the facts by the lower Court before the application of the law, that will be a question of mixed law and facts. Put another way, where a ground of appeal is based on an allegation of error deduced from a conclusion on undisputed facts, it is a ground of law. Where on the other hand, the error of law is founded on undisputed facts calling into question
7
the correctness of the facts determined by the lower Court, it is inevitably a question of mixed law and fact. This is because in the latter, it is a conclusion of law coupled with the exercise of discretion.
?The question of when a ground of appeal would be said to question the findings of fact made by a trial Court is not always an easy one. What is required is for the Court determining same to thoroughly examine the grounds of appeal in the case to see whether the grounds reveal a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, in which case, it would be a question of law; or it is one that would require questioning the evaluation of facts by the lower Court before the application of the law, in which case it would amount to a question of mixed law and facts. Where the ground is an invitation to the appellate Court to investigate the existence or otherwise of certain facts made by the trial Court or where it questions the evaluation of the evidence tendered, then it is a ground of fact or at best, a ground of mixed law and fact. In other words, where a ground of appeal is a
8
complaint against the findings of the trial Court based on evidence led at the trial or the evaluation of the evidence by the trial Court, it is purely a ground of fact.
In deciding whether a ground of appeal is one of law alone, mixed law and facts or of facts simpliciter, the Court will be required to read the ground of appeal together with the particulars as a whole. The fact that a ground of appeal has been ?tagged? in a particular way does not make it one which it portends to be. Thus, in the consideration of whether a ground of appeal is mixed law and fact or facts simpliciter, the ground of appeal and the particulars must be considered and taken together. They cannot be considered or taken separately.
Finally, by Section 241 of the Constitution (as amended), where the grounds of appeal are on facts or mixed law and facts, being therefore grounds that are not on law and the Appellant does not obtain prior leave, this Court would not be clothed with jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal.
In the instant Appeal, the Grounds of Appeal without their particulars complain as follows ?
9
?Ground One
The learned trial Court erred in law when he held that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the counter-claim of the Respondent even when the said counter-claim did not disclosed (sic) reasonable cause of action against the Appellants.
Ground Two (2)
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he awarded the cost of N50, 000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) to be paid by the Defence Counsel personally (Appellants Counsel) in favour of the Plaintiff for causing unnecessary delay in the hearing of this case.?
It is evident that the main complaint of the Appellants under Ground one is that the Appellants (Defendants to the counter-claim) were not proper parties to the action because the counter-claimant in his pleadings stated that they were neither the owners nor agents of Dr. Iorwaese Viashima, the owner of the disputed plot. In addition, the Appellants also contend that the claim for recovery of rents can only be determined at the Rent Tribunal or the District Court. Consequently, since the particulars of Ground one undoubtedly raise issues on the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain same, the Appellants did not require
10
the leave of Court before approaching this Court with their Appeal.
As aforesaid, jurisdiction is a threshold issue which must be dealt with as soon as it rears its head. Thus, the doors of the Courts are always wide open for aggrieved litigants because Courts are loathe to permit obstacles to be placed on the way of prospective Appellants who complain that the lower Court did not ab initio have jurisdiction to hear a suit. That being the case, the Appellants did not require the leave of Court to approach the Court with their Appeal. Consequently, the preliminary objection is without merit and is overruled.
Substantive Appeal
In their Brief of argument, the Appellants distilled the following two issues for determination:
1. Whether or not the claim of the Respondent (Plaintiff at the lower Court) cloth the lower Court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the counter claim of the Respondent, same having not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the Appellant. (Ground 1)
2. Whether or not the lower Court is clothed with jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by the Respondent (Plaintiff at the lower Court). If the answer is in
11
the negative can the order of the lower Court made on the 16/8/2018 stand? (Ground 2)
The Respondent addressed the same issues in his Brief of argument. Issues one and two distilled by the Appellants are clearly overlapping and repetitive. They both simply question whether the lower Court was clothed with jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim, there being no reasonable cause of action. They will therefore be addressed together.
Issues one and two –
Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Respondent?s suit at the lower Court discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Appellants, thereby robbing the lower Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine it. He submits that the jurisdiction of the Court is determined from the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff. Therefore, reference is made to paragraph 16(a) of the counter-claim where the Respondent seeks a declaration that he bought Plot No BNC 1168 from the 3rd Defendant (Dr. Iorwuese Viashima) sometime in 2007. It is contended that the 3rd Defendant was initially not a party to the suit, but the Respondent subsequently applied to have him joined vide Motion No:
12
MHC/4760M/16. However, he later applied that Dr. Viashima?s name be struck out and this application was granted on 18-12-18. Counsel contends that this is in spite of the fact that the Respondent, by his Further Amended Statement of Claim, stated that he dealt with the 3rd Defendant, whose name was struck out, in respect of the land, and denied that he dealt directly with the Appellants. It is therefore argued that the Respondent did not recognize the 1st Appellant as an agent of the 3rd Defendant.
?Furthermore, Counsel refers to paragraph 1(c) of the Respondent?s Reply to the 3rd Defendant?s Statement of Defence, as well as paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the 3rd Defendant?s Statement on oath to contend that the Appellants acted on the power of attorney given to them by the erstwhile 3rd Defendant; whereas the Respondent denied this and copiously contended that he dealt directly with the 3rd Defendant and not with any of the Appellants. Based on these averments, Counsel contends that the erstwhile 3rd Defendant (Dr. Iorwuese Viashima) is a necessary party in the suit and that without him, the lower Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain
13
the suit.
In addition to this, Counsel submits that since by paragraph 16(b) of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, the Respondent seeks damages for rent due on the demised premises as well as possession of the premises, these issues are only triable by the Rent Tribunal. The Tribunal is established by the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Laws of Benue State to deal with matters relating to residential premises; while the District Courts deal with matters related to commercial premises. The lower Court was therefore called upon to decline jurisdiction to entertain same.
In respect of issue two, Counsel submits that where a Court lacks jurisdiction, no matter how well the proceedings are conducted, it amounts to nullity. Utih V Onoyiwe (1991) 1 SCNJ 25 at 49; & Okoro V Egbuoh (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 1 at 23-24 are relied on. The Court is therefore urged to allow the Appeal and set aside the Ruling.
In response learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that his counter-claim which was filed in response to the Appellants? claim (subsequently struck out), is for a declaration that he is sole owner of plot BNC 1168
14
measuring approximately 0.49Ha located opposite Benue Links Park, Wurukum-Makurdi, having purchased the land from the one-time 3rd Defendant (Dr. Iorwuese Viashima); special damages for rent due on the demised premises, an order of eviction from the demised premises for misbehavior bordering on the challenge of the landlord’s title, and general damages.
Counsel submits that proof of the Respondent?s claim is guided by Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011. Thus, the Respondent built his case at trial with an array of witnesses and an avalanche of documents to support the reliefs. It is contended that the Appellants are in occupation of the premises which the Respondent claims and which the Appellants, as Plaintiffs, had claimed when he sued the Respondent in the same suit, claiming for the same land.
?Counsel submits that a cause of action means the facts which establish or give rise to a right of action and that factual situation which gives a person the right to judicial relief. Thus, he argues that the Appellants? contention that the removal of the 3rd Defendant as a defendant was fatal to the counter-claim and is tantamount to the
15
Respondent suing the wrong parties is misleading. Counsel contends that the proof of the Respondent’s claim is not dependent on the character of the persons sued, but is contingent on Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011. In this regard, reliance is also placed on Order 13 Rule 6 of the Benue State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 which provides that –
“It shall not be necessary that every Defendant shall be interested as to all the reliefs prayed for, or as to every cause of action included in any proceeding against him.”
Counsel therefore submits that since the 1st Appellant claims to be the donee of a purported Power of Attorney of the real owner of the property in dispute, he is capable of suing and being sued in his name on any or all issues pertaining to the subject property. Reliance is placed on Ajuwon V Adeoti (1990)2 NWLR (Pt. 132) 271.
?It is also submitted that since it was the 1st Appellant who, as Plaintiff, first initiated the suit leading to this Appeal before the Respondent responded by filing a defence as well as a counter-claim, the 1st Appellant cannot now be heard to sue in one name (to wit: the holder of a Power of
16
Attorney of the former 3rd Defendant) and yet turn around to deny this capacity in the course of the same proceedings. This, it is contended, amounts to approbating and reprobating. In the light of this, the Court is urged to resolve issue one against the Appellants.
In response to issue, two learned Counsel submits that the jurisdiction of the Court is determined by statute and the Statement of claim. He argues that from the reliefs sought by the Respondent in his counter-claim, the Appellants have failed to show how any or all of the reliefs fell outside the jurisdiction of the lower Court as required by law. The Court is therefore urged to resolve this issue against the Appellants and to dismiss the Appeal in its entirety.
In his Reply Brief, the Appellant?s Counsel simply re-argued the Appeal on points of facts.
Findings
The Appellants grouse in this Appeal is with the finding of the trial Court wherein it overruled their preliminary objection to the hearing of the suit which had contended that the counter-claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the Court was without jurisdiction to entertain a claim
17
for recovery of rent and possession of premises. It is apt at this stage to set out a portion of the Ruling at pages 125-126 of the Record for ease of reference:
?Looking at this application critically, I observed that the main complaint is that [the] Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case on the grounds that the wrong parties have been sued and that no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed? the applicants? counsel considered the striking out of the name of the 3rd Defendant, Dr. Iorwuese Viashiam from the suit on 18/12/2018 as amounting to not having any claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants? paragraphs 6-10 of the further amended statement of claim disclose the cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants
It is the law that a cause of action is the fact or set of facts which establishes or gives rise to a right of action and that the factual situation which gives a person the right to judicial relief. See: AG Federation V AG Abia State (2001) 7 SC 32; Egbe V Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1; & Thomas V Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669.
18
Indeed, by paragraphs 6-10 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, the cause of action of the Respondent/Plaintiff is fully divulged. Contrary to the misconception of the Appellants herein, the Respondent is not contesting title to the property in question with the Appellants. The essence of his complaint is that, he (i.e. Respondent), having purchased the property from Dr, Iorwuese Viashima and received the relevant title deeds from him, the Appellants failed and/or refused to vacate the property and also failed to pay him the agreed sum as rent on the property which they presently use for their transport business. Instead, to the Respondent?s chagrin, the Appellants attempted to challenge his title by filing a claim against him in Suit No. MHC/294/2011, and on one occasion, even chased away officers of the Benue State Ministry of Lands & Survey who had gone to the land to re-survey it for the purpose of routine validation of title documents. The Respondent therefore sought for a declaration that he is the owner of the property, claimed special damages for rent due and owing, eviction of the Appellants from the property and general damages.
19
Since the law is that it is the Writ of summons and Statement of Claim that a Court should examine to determine the cause of action in the suit before it and to determine its jurisdiction, I am of the view that the lower Court was right when it held that a proper cause of action was disclosed in the Further Amended Statement of Claim of the Respondent.
?The Appellants have attempted to make a song and a dance about first the inclusion and the subsequent exclusion of Dr. Iorwuese Viashima (the alleged vendor of the land) as the 3rd Defendant in the suit, to buttress their contention that there was no reasonable cause of action. This is however neither the time nor the place as this constitutes a part of the defence of the Appellants to the suit. The Respondent?s case in his Statement of claim is that he bought the disputed plot from Dr. Iorwuese Viashima and was given all the documents of title. His grouse in the claim therefore is not with Dr. Iorwuese Viashima, but with the Appellants who, it is claimed, have refused to vacate the premises since the purchase, and who were asserting themselves as still having a right to the property. The claim has
20
not disclosed any grouse against Dr. Iorwuese Viashima to warrant his being considered a necessary party.
In addition, by paragraph 2 of the 1st and 2nd Defendants? Statement of Defence, the Appellants state thus
2. The 1st Defendant vehemently denies paragraphs 1 of the statement of the claim and states that it was the 1st defendant Chief Emmanuel Viashiama that sold a single plot No. BNC 417 to the plaintiff Aondo Dura Chris at the cost of 12 Million Naira and not Dr. Iorwuese Viashima. The said Dr. Iorwuese Viashima gave his irrevocable power of Attorney sworn to at the High Court of Justice Makurdi to his younger brother dated 22nd day of February, 2006 Mr. Emmanuel Viashima who is a transport and Chief Executive of London Line Limited, a Motor Transport Company, to dispose of his two plots for him. The power of Attorney has not been revoked. The said power of Attorney is hereby pleaded.? (Emphasis supplied)
Paragraph 8 thereof is also in the same vein as paragraph 2 above. While paragraphs 13 and 15 state as follows –
?13. That the 1st Defendant denies paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff?s further
21
amended statement of claim/counterclaim and states that the 1st defendant only sold Plot No: BNC 417 to the Plaintiff and no more.
15. The 1st Defendant denies paragraph 7 of the further amended statement of claim/counterclaim of the Plaintiff and states that the plot sold to the Plaintiff was only BNC 417. The 1st Defendant is still in occupation of plot BNC 1168 by virtue of the Power of Attorney dated 22nd day of February, 2006.? (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, in total agreement with the lower Court, I am also hard put to see how Dr. Viashima has become a necessary party to the full determination of the suit.
It must however be remembered that this is an interlocutory Appeal arising from a Ruling on whether or not the lower Court was vested with jurisdiction. The trial is yet to be concluded since in the Ruling, the learned trial Judge states that the Plaintiff (Respondent) had already adduced evidence in proof of his claim and closed his case. It was left for the Defendants (Appellants) to enter their defence. Therefore it would be unwise to go in depth into the issues now raised by the Appellants which could prejudice the final outcome of the
22
substantive suit. I do so hold.
In addition, the Appellant has contended that the lower Court is without jurisdiction to entertain claims of recovery of rent and possession of premises and for this, has relied on the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Laws of Benue State to state that only the Rent Tribunal or the District Courts have jurisdiction. However, the jurisdiction of the High Court of a State, such as Benue State, is circumscribed by Section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). It states clearly that ?
272. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person.?
Certainly, the provisions of the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential
23
Premises Laws of Benue State cannot detract from the wide jurisdiction vested in the High Court of Benue State by the Constitution. Therefore, without much ado, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the lower Court that there is no feature in this case which removes it from the jurisdiction of the High Court, notwithstanding that the claim also seeks special damages in the nature of rent due and owing, possession of the disputed land and eviction of the Appellants there from. Thus, for all the above reasons, I resolve the two issues for determination in favour of the Respondent.
In the result, I find the Appeal totally devoid of merit. It fails and is dismissed. I award costs of this Appeal assessed at N100,000.00 to the Respondent against the Appellants.
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: My learned Brother Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JCA, made available to me a draft copy of the Judgment just delivered, dismissing this appeal. I agree with, and adopt as mine, the resolution of the issues raised therein.
?I also dismiss the appeal and abide by the orders made in the lead Judgment, including the order as to costs.
24
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.: I read in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother, Sankey, JCA, which has just been delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein which I adopt as mine in dismissing the appeal.
I abide by the order as to costs in the lead judgment.
25
Appearances:
S.A. Akpehe, Esq.For Appellant(s)
I.A. Ututu, Esq.For Respondent(s)
Appearances
S.A. Akpehe, Esq.For Appellant
AND
I.A. Ututu, Esq.For Respondent
