CHIEF JOHNSON ANUMUDU v. DHL INTERNATIONAL NIGERIA LIMITED
(2019)LCN/13290(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 17th day of May, 2019
CA/L/370/2008
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CHIEF JOHNSON ANUMUDU
(Trading under the name and style of J.O. Anumudu & Co.) Appellant(s)
AND
DHL INTERNATIONAL NIGERIA LIMITED Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A STYLE FOR WRITING A COURT’S JUDGEMENT
Although there is no fixed style or form of judgement writing by Courts, however there are very basic, minimum and elementary requirements that each judgement of a superior Court of record, established by the Constitution, is expected to satisfy and meet. In the case of Ogolo v. Ogolo (2003) 12 SC (Pt.1) 56, (2003) 15 NWLR (852) 494, the Supreme Court, per Katsina-Alu, JSC, stated the law that: –
?It is no longer in doubt that writing a judgement is an art and as such each Judge is entitled to and free to follow his own style in achieving the end result. However, there are certain essential components which a good judgement must incorporate inter alia, set out the nature of the action before the Court; the issues in controversy; a review of the case for the parties; a consideration of the relevant law raised and applicable to the case; specific findings of fact, and conclusion. The reasons for arriving at the conclusions must also be stated.?
See also Igwe v. Alvan Ikoku College of Education, Owerri (1994) 8 NWLR (363) 459 @ 480-1; Imogiemhe v. Alokwe (1995) 7 NWLR (4909) 581 @ 593; Akinfolarin v. Akinnola (1994) 3 NWLR (335) 659, all referred to by the Apex Court in the case. Because a judgement entered under the summary judgement procedure, like one under the undefended list procedure, is on the merit; see Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Odesanya (1988) 2 NWLR (74) 1; Nasco Town, Plc v. Nwabueze (2014) LPELR-22526(CA); G. Cappa, Plc v. Abmine & Sons (2002) 11 NWLR (777) 32; Teno Engr. Ltd v. Adisa (2005) 10 NWLR (933) 346, there is the legal requirement that it should attain the above basic quality of a good judgment which is subject to appeal. PER GARBA, J.C.A.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the summary judgement entered in favour of the Respondent by the Lagos State High Court (High Court) in Suit No. LD/2487/2002, on the 9th February, 2006, as per the specially endorsed writ and Statement of Claim, both dated 19th November, 2002 which had claims as follows:-
(a) Payment of the sum of N1,605,000.00 (One Million, Six Hundred and Five Thousand Naira) being money had and received by Appellant from Respondent as three years rent and other fees for property situate at 9B, Adeola Odeku Street, Victoria Island, Lagos and
(b) Interests at the rate of 21% per annum from 5th July, 2002 till judgement and thereafter at the rate of 7% per annum until the sum is paid in full.
The Respondent’s motion for final judgement was filed on 7th March, 2003 and the proceedings at which it was granted on the 9th February, 2006, were brief as follows: –
“Parties absent except the defendant who appears in person.
Abutu O.A. for the claimant with Olayinka Babatunde.
Chief J.O. Anumudu for the defendant.
1
Motion for judgement dated 10th March, 2005 pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 & 2 of High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004 for an order for summary judgement for the sum of N1,605,000.00.
Rest as on the motion paper. The ground is that the defendant/respondent has no defence to this action. Written Address is filed, I rely on my affidavit and I adopt my written address. The defendant had been served, they have chosen not to respond by not filing a counter affidavit. I seek to move in terms.
Anumudu: Writ of summons and statement of claim not served. Secondly the defendant has a reasonable defence accordingly to White Black Order 14 is same with 11. Service cannot be waived, case cannot be settled under Order 11 because there is a dispute too between the parties.
Court: Judgement is hereby entered for the claimant for writ of summons and statement of claim. The defendant shall oblige the claimant and said sum of N1,605,000.00 and interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 19th November, 2002 till date and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until the final liquidation. Defendant?s motion is struck out.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2006.”
2
As can easily be observed, the Appellant is shown not to have filed a Counter Affidavit to the Respondent’s motion for judgment and the Appellant who appeared in person, said the writ and Statement of Claim were not served on him and that he had a reasonable defence.
In the Appellant’s brief filed on the 24th February, 2009, three (3) issues are set out for determination in the appeal as follows: –
a) Whether or not the defendant/Appellant has a valid defence and has shown cause against the plaintiff’s application for summary judgement.
b) Whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter or this case.
c) Whether the trial judge ought not have given the appellant leave to defend the action and order a trial in view of the conflicts on crucial and substantive matters contained in the parties affidavits and processes.
The issues raised in the Respondents brief filed on the 5th December, 2018 are thus: –
“i. Whether Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 20th April, 2009 and filed outside the time allowed by the Rules of this Honourable Court is competent.
3
ii. Whether the Appellant has a defence to Respondent?s action at the lower Court; and
iii. Whether the lower Court was right in granting Respondent?s Motion for Judgement.?
The Appellant was absent at the hearing of the appeal and so, was deemed to have argued the appeal on the Appellant Brief at page 8 of which issue 2 above, was abandoned.
Looking at the issues raised by the parties, the germane issue which calls for decision, from the grounds of appeal is simply whether the High Court was right to have granted the Respondent?s motion for judgement in the circumstances of the case.
In the case of Sha v. Kwan (2000) 8 NWLR (670) 685 @ 700, the Supreme Court had stated that:
?The Court of Appeal is at liberty and possess the jurisdiction to modify or reject all or any of the issues formulated by the parties and frame its own issues or, as pointed out above, to reframe the issues by the parties if, in its views, such issues will not lead to proper determination of the appeal.?
See also Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 10 NWLR (1201) 163 @ 181, Onochie v. Odogwu (2006) 6 NWLR (975) 65,
4
NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 MJSC (Pt. III) 67.
I intend to deal with the appeal on the basis of the sole issue which forms the fulcrum of the complaint by the Appellant against the decision by the High Court.
Before then, I would mention that the Respondent?s issue 1 which raises an objection to the Appellant?s Brief on the ground that it was filed out of the time prescribed by the Rules of Court is misconceived and I should point out that since the Appellant Brief is before the Court and the Respondent?s Counsel has responded and reacted to the said brief, the Court cannot and should not close its eyes to it or ignore it on the ground only that it was filed out of the time prescribed by the Rules of Court and so irregular. The extant attitude of the Courts is that Rules of Court are made and intended to aid and assist the cause of justice and not to defeat it by shutting out parties from the seat of justice or permit parties to score a technical knock-out at the expense of a hearing on the merit, for a breach of the Rules which does not occasion any prejudice or miscarriage of justice in a case.
5
In this regard Order 20, Rule 3(1) and (2) Rule of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 provides that: –
?(1) The Court may, in an exceptional circumstance, and where it considers it in the interest of justice so to do, waive compliance by the parties with these Rules or any part thereof.
(2) Where there is such waiver of compliance with the Rules, the Court may, in such manner as it thinks right, direct the Appellant or the Respondent as the case may be, to remedy such non-compliance or may, notwithstanding, order the appeal to proceed or give such directions as it considers necessary in the circumstance.?
Clearly, the Rules themselves, in the provisions, show that the primary duty of the Court is to do substantial justice in all appeals that come before it and in so doing, is the master of the Rules over which it has the discretionary power to waive non-compliance therewith by the parties in the interest of justice, as it may think right. In line with that position, Tobi, JSC, in Sosanya v. Onadeko (2005) 8 NWLR (926) 185 explained that: –
?It is good law that rules of Court are made for the Courts and not the other way round and that is, the Courts are not
6
made for their rules. This means that if compliance with rules of Court will cause injustice or miscarriage in the case, the Court will, in its choice substantial justice, detract or move away from the rules of Court.?
See also, generally, CBN v. Amao (2010) 16 NWLR (1219) 271, Dingyadi v. INEC (No.2) (2010) 18 NWLR (1224) 154, Duke v. Akpabuyo L.G. (2005) 19 NWLR (959) 130, Obi v. INEC (2008) 1-2 SC, 28, Fidelity Bank, Plc v. Monye (2012) LPELR-7819 (SC) PDP v. INEC (2012) LPELR-9724 (SC).
In the above premises, the Appellant?s brief is deemed by the Court and would be considered for the determination of the appeal on the merit.
Appellant?s Submission:
Briefly, the submissions are to the effect that the Appellant?s Counter Affidavit shows real dispute in facts and the law such that bona fide and reasonable defence which condescends facts and dealt with the Respondent?s claim was disclosed. It is submitted that the Appellant does not need to show a complete defence that would succeed at the trial, but to simply show a triable issue that ought to go to trial and so leave should have been granted to the Appellant
7
to defend the action and the case transferred to the general course list for trial.
Judicial authorities, including Jibreze v. Okonkwo (1987) 4 NWLR (62) 751, Macaulay v. NAL MCH Bank Limited (1990) 4 NWLR (144) 283, Ebohon v. Attorney General, Edo State (1997) 5 NWLR, (no part provided) 300, and Wallingford v. Mutual Soc. 5 App. Cases 685, were cited in support of the arguments and the Court is urged to allow the appeal, set aside the decision by the High Court and send the case back to that Court for trial on the merit.
Respondent?s Submission:
It is submitted that the Appellant?s Statement of Defence did not show any real defence, but only sought to delay or postpone his meeting the contractual obligation he owes to the Respondent and thereby frustrate the Respondent which should not be allowed by the authority of Macaulay v. NAL MCH Bank (supra), Offa Local Government v. Oladipo (2012) LPELR-15339 (CA), Kokoorin v. Patigi Local Government (2009) LPELR-8376 (CA). The High Court is said to be right for entering judgment in favour of the Respondent since the Appellant did not show a real defence on the merit which is based on facts
8
to warrant leave to defend the action and the cases of Niger Aluminum Manufacturing Company Limited v. UBN, Plc (2015) LPELR-26010 (CA), Lewis v. UBA, Plc (2016) LPELR-40661 (SC), Obasanjo Farms Nigeria Limited v. Muhammad (2016) LPELR-40199 (CA), among others, were cited.
In conclusion, the Court is urged to dismiss the appeal.
Now, Order 11 of the High Court Rules, 2004 under which the High Court granted the Respondent?s motion for summary judgement, provides in Rules 1, 4 and 5 as follows: –
?1. Where a claimant believes that there is no defence to his claim, he shall file with his originating process the statement of claim, the exhibits, the depositions of his witnesses and an application for summary judgment which application shall be supported by an affidavit stating the grounds for his belief and a written brief in respect thereof.
4. Where a party served with the processes and documents referred to in Rule 1 of this Order intends to defend the suit he shall, not later than the time prescribed for defence, file:
(a) his statement of defence,
(b) depositions of his witnesses,
(c) exhibits to be used in his
9
defence; and
(d) a written brief in reply to the application for summary judgment.
5(1) Where it appears to a Judge that a defendant has a good defence and ought to be permitted to defend the claim he may be granted leave to defend.
(2) Where it appears to a Judge that the defendant has no good defence the Judge may thereupon enter judgment for a claimant.
(3) Where it appears to a Judge that the defendant has a good defence to part of the claim but no defence to other parts of the claim, the Judge may thereupon enter judgment for that part of the claim to which there is no defence and grant leave to defend that part to which there is a defence.?
As may easily be discerned from these provisions, the summary judgement procedure is one which aims to and whose primary purpose is the attainment of speedy disposition of claims or cases, to which, prima facie on the facts and Affidavit evidence of the parties, there is no genuine and real dispute on the material facts of the claim, without the need for full trial.
?The procedure is meant for cases where the material facts of a claim are not seriously disputed or contested and so
10
there is no real or genuine defence to it in order to necessitate full trial with its usual attendants of delay and expenses.
In UBA, Plc v. Jargaba (2007) 11 NWLR (1045) 247, the Apex Court described the summary judgement procedure as follows: –
?A summary Judgement procedure is a procedure for disposing with dispatch, cases which are virtually uncontested. It also applies to cases where there can be no reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment and where it is inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for mere purpose of delay. It is for the plain and straight forward, not for the devious and crafty.?
See also Rebold Industry Limited v. Ladipo (2007) LPELR-8709 (CA), Nnabude v. G.N. Godiscoy WA Limited (2010) 15 NWLR (1216) 365, Bona iles Limited v. Asaba ile Mill, Plc (2013) 2 NWLR (1338) 357, Ilomuanya v. Lobi Bank, Limited (1997) 12 NWLR (531) 1, FSB International Bank Limted v. Imano (1995) 2 NWLR (377) 295, Iron Product Limited v. S.A.C. Limited (1992) 4 NWLR (238) 734, Macaulay v. NAL Merchant Bank Limited (supra), Okambah Limited v. Sule (1990) 11-12 SC, 47.
?In this appeal, as provided for in
11
Order 11, Rule 1(1) of the High Court Rules, the application for summary judgement, which is similar to the undefended List Procedure; see Thor Limited v. FCMB Limited (2005) 14 NWLR (946) 696, is to be supported by an affidavit stating the grounds for the claimant?s brief that the Defendant has no defence to his claim and would be served on the Defendant pursuant to Rule 3 and a return given or set down for the hearing of the application. Where the Defendant intends to defend the action or claim against him, Rule 4 requires him to file his Statement of Defence, depositions of witnesses, exhibits to be used in the defence and written brief to the application for summary judgement. It is after the filing of a statement of defence by a Defendant along with other processes including a written brief in reply to the application for summary judgement, that the High Court pursuant to Rule 5, would then consider all the processes filed by both the claimant in the application for summary judgement along with the Affidavit and other Exhibits attached thereto, as well as the Defendant and then determine the application for summary judgement. This means that the
12
High Court in line with the requirements of Sections 131, 132 and 133(1) of the Evidence Act, 2004 (applicable) it was to consider the case put forward by the claimant in Statement of Claim and the Affidavit in support of the application, and be satisfied that he has satisfactorily discharged the initial burden of prima facie, showing a case for which the Defendant shall be called upon to show a good defence. This is because, it was the claimant who prayed the High Court to enter judgement in its favour based on assertion of indebtedness allegedly owed by the Appellant as Defendant and who would have failed if no evidence at all was called in the case. Until when and if the burden of proof required of the Respondent was prima facie discharged, there would be no case for which the Appellant was to be called upon to show any defence at all, let alone, a good defence. This step or procedure is a requirement of the law that should be taken and followed in the determination of the application for a summary judgment under Order 11 Rule 1(1) of the High Court Rules. It is after the Court was satisfied that a prima facie case was shown by the facts in the Statement of
13
Claim and Affidavit evidence filed by the claimant in support of the application, that the Statement of Defence and other processes filed by the Defendant would call for consideration in order to determine whether or if a good defence was disclosed to entitle the Defendant to the grant of leave to defend the action or claim against him by the claimant. This procedure is slightly different from the procedure under the Undefended List Procedure by which a Court is required to look at and consider the claimant?s processes in a separate application and determine whether or not to place the case or claim under the undefended list procedure for the purpose of hearing. At the resumed or return date of a case placed under the undefended list procedure, all that a Court will look at is the notice of an intention to defend the action, if any, by a Defendant along with an Affidavit in support thereof, in order to determine if a defence on the merit was disclosed to warrant the grant of leave to defend the action or claim. However, the common position of the law on the two (2) procedures is that the mere filing of a defence and written brief under the summary
14
procedure or notice of intention to defend supported by an Affidavit under the undefended list procedure, does not automatically result in the grant of the requisite leave of Court to defend the action and the consequent transfer of the case to the general cause list for a full trial. For the grant of leave, the Court must satisfy itself that material, relevant and sufficient facts and particulars were disclosed therein to constitute a real and genuine defence on the merit to the action of the claimant. See Ataguba & Co. Ltd v. Gura Nig. Ltd (2005) ALL FWLR (256) 1219 @ 2 SC (Pt. 1) 101 @ 109; Nortex Nig. Ltd. v. Franc Tools Co. Ltd. (1997) 4 NWLR (501) 603; Agro Millers Ltd. v. Continental Mech. Bank Nig. Plc. (1997) 10 NWLR (525) 469; Jipreze v. Okonkwo (supra); Peter Tiwell Nig. Ltd. v. Inland Bank Nig. Ltd. (1997) 3 NWLR (494) 408; Knightsbridge v. Atamako (2000) 2 NWLR (645) 387. However, as a general principle where, by the specific and positive facts deposed to in the statement of defence, the Defendant shows that he has a fair case for defence or reasonable grounds for setting-up a real defence or even a fair probability that he has bona fide
15
defence, by creating some doubt in the case of the claimant, he ought to be granted leave to defend the action against him. See Macgregor v. N. M. B. Ltd (1996) 2 SCNJ, 72 @ 82; Santory Co. Ltd v. Elabed (1998) 12 NWLR (579) 538 @ 544; Jipreze v. Okonkwo (supra).
The facts in support of the Respondent?s claim and Affidavit in support of the application for summary judgement are to the effect that by contract, the Respondent paid money as rents to the Respondent who failed or refused to deliver possession of the property paid for/or refund the rents paid. See paragraphs 3-8 of the statement of claim and paragraph 4 of the Affidavit in support of the motion for judgement filed by the Respondent.
By paragraph 3 of the statement of defence dated 3rd May, 2005, the Appellant admitted the contract between him and the Respondent and receipt of the rents paid for the property, but in paragraphs 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 16-29 averred that the Respondent was put in possession as agreed but demanded for more space which was provided and the Respondent refused to pay for. The Appellant Counter-Claimed for additional works carried out on the additional space at
16
the instance of Respondent as well as rent for the space. The facts in the statement of defence were the same as contained in the earlier 16 paragraphs Counter Affidavit and filed on the 14th May, 2003 in opposition to the Respondent?s motion for summary judgement. So both the Counter Affidavit and Statement of Defence filed by the Appellant were processes before the High Court as at the 9th February, 2006 the day on which the Ruling on the motion for summary judgement was delivered and even if irregularly filed, it had the judicial obligation not only to look at them, but to consider them in the determination of the motion for judgement, in the interest of justice and in line with the spirit of the constitutionally guaranteed parties right to fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations by Courts or other tribunals established by the constitution and/or the law.
?I have before now, stated that under the procedure provided for by Order 11, Rules 1(1) 2 and 4 of the High Court Rules, it is required to look and closely consider the processes filed both parties, where a Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and other processes,
17
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 5 in order to determine if a real or good defence was disclosed to warrant the grant of leave to the Defendant to defend the action against. Without a judicial and judicious consideration of the facts disclosed in the said processes of the parties, there can be no just and fair determination of the application or motion for summary judgement by the High Court, which can be sustainable in law.
I have set out the five (5) lines decision by the High Court in which judgement was entered in favour of the Respondent without even a passing reference to, not to talk of judicial and judicious consideration of, the relevant and material facts set out in the Statement of Claim, Statement of Defence and the Affidavit and Counter Affidavit filed in the case and the motion for the judgment entered.
In addition, no reason at all was stated, even in passing, for the grant of the Respondent?s application for judgement on the basis of which the judgement was entered by the High Court in its favour; ?for writ of summons and statement of claim/? (sic).
?With the respect due to the High Court, the law not only
18
imposes a legal duty on it to consider and appraise the material facts and evaluate the relevant Affidavit evidence placed before it by both parties in the determination of the application for summary judgment one or the other, but also a judicial obligation to state clearly and expressly, the reason(s) for any decision reached therein.
In the case of Doma v. INEC (2012) LPELR-7822 (SC) it was stated that: –
?Trial Courts and Appeal Courts must give reasons for their judgement. That is the hallmark of a well written judgement.?
See also Agala v. Okusin (2010) 10 NWLR (1202) 412 (SC); Yusuff v. Nig. Tobacco Co. Ltd (1977) 6 SC (Reprint) 25; Agbanelo v. UBA, Ltd (2000) 7 NWLR (666) 534.
Although there is no fixed style or form of judgement writing by Courts, however there are very basic, minimum and elementary requirements that each judgement of a superior Court of record, established by the Constitution, is expected to satisfy and meet. In the case of Ogolo v. Ogolo (2003) 12 SC (Pt.1) 56, (2003) 15 NWLR (852) 494, the Supreme Court, per Katsina-Alu, JSC, stated the law that: –
?It is no longer in doubt that writing a
19
judgement is an art and as such each Judge is entitled to and free to follow his own style in achieving the end result. However, there are certain essential components which a good judgement must incorporate inter alia, set out the nature of the action before the Court; the issues in controversy; a review of the case for the parties; a consideration of the relevant law raised and applicable to the case; specific findings of fact, and conclusion. The reasons for arriving at the conclusions must also be stated.?
See also Igwe v. Alvan Ikoku College of Education, Owerri (1994) 8 NWLR (363) 459 @ 480-1; Imogiemhe v. Alokwe (1995) 7 NWLR (4909) 581 @ 593; Akinfolarin v. Akinnola (1994) 3 NWLR (335) 659, all referred to by the Apex Court in the case. Because a judgement entered under the summary judgement procedure, like one under the undefended list procedure, is on the merit; see Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Odesanya (1988) 2 NWLR (74) 1; Nasco Town, Plc v. Nwabueze (2014) LPELR-22526(CA); G. Cappa, Plc v. Abmine & Sons (2002) 11 NWLR (777) 32; Teno Engr. Ltd v. Adisa (2005) 10 NWLR (933) 346, there is the legal requirement that it should attain the above
20
basic quality of a good judgment which is subject to appeal.
The above as it is, the facts disclosed in both the statement of claim, the Affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgement, the Statement of Defence and the Counter Affidavit along with the Exhibits attached thereto in opposition to the motion for judgement, show clearly that there is a triable issue to be decided in the case presented by the Appellant in answer and defence to the claim made by the Respondent which warrants that he be granted leave to defend the action before the High Court. Some reasonable doubt arises as to whether the Appellant is in fact indebted to the Respondent as claimed since the facts of the Respondent?s case show that he has fair and reasonable grounds for setting-up a bona fide and real defence to the claim by the Respondent. In these premises, the Appellant ought to be and should have been granted leave to defend the action on the ground that he has shown by the statement of defence, a good defence as required by Order 11 Rule 5(1) of the High Court Rules. The High Court erred in decreeing judgement in favour of the Respondent without any basis and
21
for no reason at all in a case in which the Appellant?s Statement of Defence shows a good defence to be entitled to the grant of leave to defend the action.
In the result, I find merit in the appeal and allow it. Consequently, the summary Judgement entered by the High Court in favour of the Respondent on the 9th February, 2006 is hereby set aside and leave is granted the Appellant to defend the action.
The matter is remitted to the High Court of Lagos State for expeditious determination on the merit by another Judge thereof.
Parties to bear their respective costs of prosecuting the appeal.
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: I read the Comprehensive Leading Judgment in this appeal prepared and rendered by my lord and learned brother MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JCA.
?My learned brother fully covered the field, having dealt with the issues nominated for determination, I have nothing extra to add, so doing may amount to repeating what has been discussed fully by my Lord in the leading Judgment, the reasoning and conclusion are in accord with mine, I therefore adopt the entire Judgment as mine, I have nothing
22
extra to add. I also abide by all consequential orders including the order on costs
GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the leading judgment of my learned brother, MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JCA, wherein the appeal was adjudged as meritorious and that it be allowed.
I agree with the sole issue formulated by my learned brother and a consideration of which was resolved in favour of the Appellant.
I abide with the consequential orders made to the effect, that the suit be remitted back to the lower Court and to be heard expeditiously by another judge. My learned brother also refrained from awarding costs against any of the parties. The rationale for this position in my view, is that the failure of justice was occasioned by the failure of the trial judge to accord any regard or consideration to the processes filed by the Appellant prior to the entering of summary judgment against the Appellant on 9/2/2006 on the application of the Respondent to that effect.
?The appeal is allowed by me on the strength of the leading judgment which I had read in its draft.
23
Appearances:
For Appellant(s)
O. Ajaja with him, E. OkoroFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
For Appellant
AND
O. Ajaja with him, E. OkoroFor Respondent
