CHIEF L.C. MEZUE & ANOR v. PRINCESS NKIRU OKOLO & ORS
(2019)LCN/13111(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 16th day of April, 2019
CA/E/35/2010
JUSTICES
MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. CHIEF L.C. MEZUE
2. ANAYO NDULUE Appellant(s)
AND
1. PRINCESS NKIRU OKOLO
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AWKA, ANAMBRA STATE
3. THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE FORCE HEAD QUARTER ZONE 9, UMUAHIA
4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA Respondent(s)
RATIO
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING
Section 46 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended (herein preferred to simply as the Constitution) states that:
?Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that state for redress.?
?Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that state of any right to which the person who makes the Application may be entitled under this chapter.?
Section 36(1) and (5) of the Constitution also 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.?
?Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.”
From the foregoing provisions of the Constitution with reference to Section 46(1) & (2), where a person alleges that his fundamental rights have been, is being or is likely to be infringed upon, such a person is entitled to apply to a High Court for redress. PER DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE
In bringing a matter for the enforcement of fundamental rights where such right had been violated, such fact must be proved by relevant evidence. Section 135 of the Evidence Act provides thus:
?Whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.?
?When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.?
Where has the burden of proof in a fundamental right case? It was stated in ONAH V. OKENWA (2010) 7 NWLR (pt. 1194) 512 CA pg. 516 that:
?He who asserts must prove. The burden of proof lies on an Applicant who applied for the enforcement of their fundamental rights to establish by credible affidavit evidence that their fundamental right was breached.?
It is the duty of an applicant alleging breach of his fundamental rights to place sufficient evidence before the Court. It was held in FAJEMIROKUN V. CB (CL) LTD (2002) 10 NWLR (part 774) 95 @ 113-114 paras. H-A that:
?For an application alleging infringement of his fundamental rights to succeed, he must place before the Court all vital evidence regarding the infringement or breach of such rights. It is only thereafter that the burden shifts to the Respondent. Where that has been done or where scanty evidence was put in by the Applicant, the trial court can strike out such Application for being devoid of merits. In the instant case, the trial Court was right in holding that the Application was devoid of any merit as the Appellant failed to provide sufficient facts in his supporting affidavit to establish that his fundamental right was infringed.? (emphasis mine). PER DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.
MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Anambra State, Onitsha Judicial Division delivered by Hon. Justice Vin N. Agbata on the 16th day of September, 2008 wherein the learned trial Judge entered judgment against the Appellants who were Applicants at the trial for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
The Appellants initiated the suit via a motion ex-parte dated the 21st day of May, 2007 and filed on the 24th day of May, 2007 for leave of the Court permitting them to bring an Application on Notice for the Enforcement of their Fundamental rights, which was granted before a motion on Notice was made on the 13th day of June, 2007 and filed on the 15th day of June, 2007.
The Appellants/Applicants prayed the trial Court for the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the actions of the Respondents in invading the Applicants? houses at Umuru village, Ideani Town, Idemili North Local Government Area, Anambra State and their offices at No. 60a Old Market Road, Onitsha. Onitsha North Local Government Area, Anambra State
1
respectively on 11/5/2007 and 21/5/2007, wherein they attempted to arrest the Applicants with a view to whisking them away to one of the 3rd Respondents office at central police station Onitsha but for the fact that the Applicants communicated with their legs, and had been in hiding ever since, violated the Applicants? fundamental Rights as enshrined in Sections 34,35,36 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, for no offence known under the laws of our country other than the fact that the 2nd Respondent bought a landed property known as and called Plot No. 1359A situate at AKPAKA FOREST LAYOUT Onitsha, Onitsha North Local Government Area, Anambra State, which is in dispute from one MR AYOBAMI OLOJEDE O. and the 2nd Applicant was one of the commissioned agents in the land transaction. The 1st Applicant is also from the same Umuru village, Ideani town, and is also related to the 2nd Applicant. The Respondents are now seriously looking and searching the whole length and breadth of the country for the Applicants for a purely civil transaction involving conveyance of landed property for the purpose of detaining and incarcerating
2
them for no offence known under the laws of our Country.
b. A declaration that the attempts to arrest and detain the 1st Applicant, who is an Estate Manager by profession and the 2nd Applicant who is a businessman, on the 11/5/2007 and 21/5/2007 respectively, at the Applicants houses at Umuru Village, Ideani Town, Idemili North Local Government Area, Onitsha North Local Government Area, Anambra State, wherein they attempted to arrest the Applicants with a view to whisking them away to one of the 3rd Respondent?s office at central police station Onitsha but for the fact that the Applicants communicated with their legs, and had been in hiding ever since, violated the Applicants? fundamental Rights as entrenched in Sections 34,35,36 and 41 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, for no offence known under the laws of our country other than the laws of our Court and have kept away from their said houses and offices for fear of further threats and arrest by the agents of the Respondents, for no offence known under our laws and without an order of a competent Court.
c. A declaration that the conduct of the Respondents
3
towards the Applicants as contained in the statement in support of this application create/constitute serious threat to the fundamental Rights of the Applicants and if unchecked might likely cause the breach of their fundamental Rights as enshrined in Sections 34, 35, 36 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
d. An order permanently restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or privies from further infringing upon the Applicants? fundamental Rights which include the right to human dignity, personal liberty, freedom of movement, freedom from harassment and unlawful detention and right to fair hearing.
e. Public Apology from the Respondents to the Applicants for embarrassment and undue harassment.
Upon being served with the Application of motion on notice, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents at trial on the 17th day of October, 2007 filed a counter affidavit and a written address dated the same day while the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a counter affidavit and a written address on the 31st day of October, 2007 dated the 31st day of October, 2007 and the 25th day of October, 2007 respectively.
4
At the hearing, the Applicants tendered Exhibits which were admitted and marked Exhibit A and Exhibit NK2. The Respondents on the other hand tendered an Exhibit which were also admitted and marked Exhibit A1.
At the conclusion of trial, parties exchanged their written addresses and in a Judgment delivered on the 16th day of September, 2008, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the Applicants.
The Applicants, aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court have, the Appellants aired their concerns by raising a Notice of Appeal dated the 17th day of September, 2008 and filed on the 24th day of September, 2008.
The Appellants were the applicants at trial while the Respondents remained Respondents. The parties will be respectively referred to simply as the Appellants and Respondents.
The learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent, Hon. Obi Anizoba Esq. (JP) filed a notice of Preliminary Objection on the 30th day of April, 2018 which was dated the 26th day of April, 2018.
The grounds for this preliminary objection are as follows:
a. Whether the lone ground of appeal emanated from the decision and/or Judgment of the trial Court in order
5
to make a competent and/or valid ground of appeal.
b. Whether the sole issue formulated by the Appellants emanated from a competent ground of appeal.
It is pertinent to resolve the Preliminary Objection first before delving into the Appeal itself if necessary.
A
The Appellants lone ground of Appeal states thus:
?The learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Appellants fundamental rights which were breached as is manifested in Exhibit NK2 was not enough to ground a suit under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.?
The judgment of the trial Court on page 80 of the records in the third paragraph states as follows:
?I have always considered it a very wrong attitude for one to run to the Court to complain of a breach of his fundamental rights at the slightest contact with the police. In approaching the Court, an Applicant must Endeavour to furnish the Court with sufficient materials on the basis of which he expects to sustain that allegation.?
A close look at the above Judgment of the trial Court would show that the Appellants? lone ground of appeal
6
emanated from it, even though the ground of appeal were not the exact words of the learned trial Judge. It therefore makes a valid ground of appeal as a ground of appeal complains on a specific aspect in the Judgment and stems from the ratio decidendi of a Judgment and not on any extraneous matter.
B
Having established the fact that the lone ground of appeal of the Appellants emanated from the Judgment of the Court, it can be rightly said that the sole issue for determination formulated by the Appellants also emanated from their ground of appeal.
The preliminary objection raised on grounds (a) and (b) is hereby dismissed.
The Appellants formulated one issue for determination which is:
?Whether the Applicants/Appellants fundamental Rights were breached as is shown or manifested in Exhibit NK.2, which is the document that the 1st to the 5th Respondents forced or coerced the 1st Applicant/Appellant into signing at the Central Police Station Onitsha before he along with the 2nd Applicant/Appellant could be released and regained their freedom, contrary to the provisions of Section 46(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal
7
Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Section 36(1) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.?
The issue is at page 2 of the Appellant?s Brief of argument which is dated the 22nd day of March, 2010 was filed on the 25th day of March, 2010. The Appellants? Reply Brief dated the 9th day of May, 2018 was filed on the 15th of May, 2018. Both briefs were settled by J.O. Onwujekwe Esq.
The 1st Respondent also formulated a sole issue for the determination of this Appeal as follows:
?Whether on the evidence produced at the trial Court, it can be said that the fundamental rights of the Applicants have been violated by the Respondents.”
The issue is at page 8 of the 1st Respondents? brief which is dated the 26th day of April, 2018 and filed on the 30th day of April, 2018. The 1st Respondents? brief was settled by Hon. Obi Anizoba Esq. (JP). The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents did not file any brief, although they were duly served with all the processes and the hearing notices.
The relevant facts which culminated into this Appeal as stated by the Respondents at paragraphs 1.01 through 1.09
8
at pages 1-3. I adopt this in this Judgment and is as follows:-
?The Appellants brought their application for the enforcement of their fundamental rights at the trial Court while complaining that they were harassed and intimidated by the 3rd-4th Respondents upon the instigation of the 1st Respondent for no justifiable reason except a botched land transaction.
The 1st Respondent on record in opposing the application averred that on 9/1/2006, she made a report against the 2nd Applicant for obtaining her money under false pretences when the said 2nd Applicant sometime in the month of September, 2004 under the guise that he has a parcel of land for sale at Akpaka Layout GRA Onitsha defrauded her of the sum of ?1,000,000 only which was paid into the 2nd Applicant?s current account No. 6020517079 domiciled with Zenith Bank Plc on 15/9/2004 and which money has since been utilized by the 2nd Applicant without delivery of possession of the said parcel of land allegedly owned by one Stanley Chinyelugo of No. 16 Ndolisa Street, Independence Layout, Enugu.
That the 1st Respondent being fully aware of the crime perpetrated on her by the 2nd
9
Applicant began to search for him and was able to arrest him personally on 9/1/2006 and took him to the Central Police Station, Onitsha.
The 2nd Applicant while responding to the complaint lodged by the 1st Respondent at the Central Police Station, Onitsha, admitted that he didn?t know that the parcel of land did not exist. He also admitted to defrauding one Ifeoma Okoye on the same issue of sale of land from one Stanley Chinelugo who had asked him to market some lands at Onitsha for him. The 1st Applicant was produced upon the arrest of the 2nd Applicant and the duo agreed to refund the total sum swindled from the 1st Respondent and Ifeoma Okoye totaling 2 million Naira only.
The Appellants were granted bail immediately when they agreed to refund the money defrauded under false pretences on 10/2/2006. Unfortunately, the Applicants jumped bail and to further torment the 1st Respondent, filed their fundamental right suit to equally prevent the other Respondents from prosecuting them for the offence of obtaining money under false pretences.
The Applicants after jumping bail have remained in hiding while prosecuting their fundamental right
10
suitin order to prevent their being charged to Court for the crime committed by them.
The trial Court on 4/6/2008 heard arguments from respective counsel for the parties and delivered judgment on 16/9/2008 dismissing the application…?
The Appellants are dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court and have appealed to this Court on a lone ground of Appeal filed on 17/9/2008.
From the grounds of Appeal and the issues formulated for determination therein, it appears to me that the complaint of the complaint of the Appellant can be adequately addressed under the issue formulated by the 1st Respondent.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel to the Appellant that by Exhibit NK2, the 1st to the 5th Respondents trampled upon, violated and infracted the rights guaranteed to the Appellants under Section 46(1) & (2) and Section 36(1) & (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
He argues that it is surprising that the learned trial Judge was talking of the onus of proof even whilst Exhibit NK2 contained at page 39 of the records of Appeal, was before it.<br< p=””
</br<
11
Learned Counsel submits that once an Applicant shows that his rights under Section 46(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has been breached, it is enough to satisfy the onus of proof. That the rights guaranteed under Section 46(1) & (2) are constitutional and statutory and can never be whittled down by the provision of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
Learned counsel argues that there has been a breach of Section 36(1) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vide Exhibit NK2 by the 1st to 5th Respondents and that any agreement written under coercion/duress at the Police station is not valid in law.
It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that the Appellants were put on trial by the Respondents on 10/2/2006 and were adjudged guilty by the Respondents without the due process of the law and without an order of a Court of competent Jurisdiction when it is clear that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria clothes every citizen of Nigeria with the presumption of innocence in Section 36(5), which was disregarded by the 1st to 5th Respondents when they foisted Exhibit NK2 on the 1st
12
Appellant before they could release the Appellants from Police custody on bail. Submits that the trial Court did not heed or pay attention to Sections 46(1) & (2) and 36(1) & (5) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria in arriving at its decision.
Learned Counsel therefore urges the Court to resolve the sole issue of this appeal in favour of the Appellants.
In response to the sole issue raised by the Appellants, learned Counsel to the Respondents Obi Anizoba Esq. states that the Applicants in their relief 2(b), lines 13 at page 18 of the record of appeal admitted that they communicated with their legs and remained in hiding ever since; yet they stated at the trial that they have not committed any offence in order to pull wool over the eyes of the Court in the exercise of its discretion in the matter.
?
Learned counsel submits that the 2nd Appellant was made to produce other members of the syndicate including the 1st Applicant after he was arrested by the 1st Respondent and that after the receipts of their statements, they were granted bail which they later jumped before filing their application for the enforcement of their fundamental right
13
in order to stop the other Respondents from exercising their constitutional assigned duties.
It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Trial Court made a finding that the Police (2nd-4th Respondent), in the process of investigating an allegation against the applicants for obtaining money under false pretences, effected an arrest and granted bail to the Appellants. However, rather than await the outcome of the investigation by the Police, the Appellants ran to the Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights and if the procedure is allowed, it would be impossible for the police to function even where it is glaring that the Appellants have committed a crime.
Learned Counsel states that the evidence for the alleged breach of the fundamental rights of the Appellants was found by the learned trial Court to fall below expectation and was only meant to stop the Police from exercising the functions of their office. Counsel cited the case of Owoniboys Tech Services Ltd v. Union Bank of Nig. Plc. (2003)15 NSCQR pg. 59 at 83 stating that it is trite law that fundamental right cases cannot be used as a shield from criminal prosecution,
14
neither can it be used as an instrument of oppression and that the findings of the trial Court that he who avers must prove remains a good law.
The learned Counsel to the Respondents urges this Court to dismiss the Appeal of the Appellants and affirm the Judgment of the trial Court that the Appellants have failed to discharge the onus of proof of violation of their fundamental rights which they cannot use as an instrument of oppression.
In response to the 1st Respondent?s brief, learned counsel to the Appellants in the Appellant?s reply Brief on points of law states that the argument of the 1st Respondent?s counsel captured in paragraphs 3.04, 4.05 and 4.06 of the respondent?s brief of argument is not borne out of the notice and grounds of appeal of the Appellant nor the Appellant?s brief of argument and to this extent, the 1st Respondent cannot argue issues not raised in the notice and grounds of Appeal, in the absence of a cross-appeal filed by her.
The case of Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum Nig. Ltd (2009)5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181 at 198 was cited where Tobi J.S.C. at pages 204-206 stated that:
15
?It is elementary law that a party must consistently make his case and not change like the weather cock in climatology.?
Learned Counsel submits that the case of the Appellant is not speculative and it is not based on conjecture or hypothetical facts but that the Appellants have consistently been complaining against the infringement, infraction and breach of their rights as constitutionally guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
Further urges the Court to allow the appeal, reverse and set aside the decision dated 16/9/2008 by the trial Court and to grant all the reliefs prayed for by the Appellants.
RESOLUTION
Section 46 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended (herein preferred to simply as the Constitution) states that:
?Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that state for redress.?
?Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made to it in
16
pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that state of any right to which the person who makes the Application may be entitled under this chapter.?
Section 36(1) and (5) of the Constitution also 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.?
?Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.”
From the foregoing provisions of the Constitution with reference to Section 46(1) & (2), where a person alleges that his fundamental rights have been, is being or is likely to be infringed upon, such a person is entitled to apply to a High Court for redress. This law therefore arms the Appellants
17
with the power to bring an Application to the High Court where they perceive that their right to presumption of and personal liberty had been breached or infringed upon by the Respondents.
The Appellants alleged that forcing them to sign and execute Exhibit NK2 before they were released on bail and commanding them to pay back certain sum of money to the 1st and 2nd Respondents; negated all the norms, forms and rules of Justice, and that they had the constitutional right under Section 46(1) to seek redress from the Court.
In bringing a matter for the enforcement of fundamental rights where such right had been violated, such fact must be proved by relevant evidence. Section 135 of the Evidence Act provides thus:
?Whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.?
?When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.?
Where has the burden of proof in a fundamental right case? It was stated in ONAH V. OKENWA (2010) 7 NWLR (pt. 1194) 512 CA
18
pg. 516 that:
?He who asserts must prove. The burden of proof lies on an Applicant who applied for the enforcement of their fundamental rights to establish by credible affidavit evidence that their fundamental right was breached.?
It is the duty of an applicant alleging breach of his fundamental rights to place sufficient evidence before the Court. It was held in FAJEMIROKUN V. CB (CL) LTD (2002) 10 NWLR (part 774) 95 @ 113-114 paras. H-A that:
?For an application alleging infringement of his fundamental rights to succeed, he must place before the Court all vital evidence regarding the infringement or breach of such rights. It is only thereafter that the burden shifts to the Respondent. Where that has been done or where scanty evidence was put in by the Applicant, the trial court can strike out such Application for being devoid of merits. In the instant case, the trial Court was right in holding that the Application was devoid of any merit as the Appellant failed to provide sufficient facts in his supporting affidavit to establish that his fundamental right was infringed.? (emphasis mine).
19
The Appellants have alleged that their rights had been violated by the Respondents. Exhibit NK2 is cited as sufficient evidence to prove the said violation of their rights.
In UMOERA V. COP (1977) LPELR- 3371 (SC), reference was made to OKUYEMI V. POLICE where Fatayi-Williams J.S.C stated that:
?Police investigations are not necessarily followed by judicial proceedings but they may be. Moreover, it is only after investigations have been completed that the Police decide whether to prosecute the suspect or not.?
In DANFULANI V. EFCC & ORS (2015) LPELR-25899 (CA), the case of AG. ANAMBRA STATE V. UBA (2005) 15 NWLR part 947 pg. 44 at 67 was cited where Bulkachuwa J.C.A (as he then was) held that:
?For a person to go to Court to be shielded against criminal investigation and prosecution is an interference of powers given by the Constitution to law officers in the control of criminal investigation.?
The responsibility to investigate a matter and determine whether the matter should be prosecuted based on the evidence is that of the Police confirmed by the provisions of Section 4 of the Police Act, 2004.
?However, the Police
20
have no duty nor right to use their coercive power to compel parties in a civil matter to make undertaking to pay off debts. The Police is not a debt recovery agency.
The Police must not detain any citizen of this country until he pays off a debt to another citizen. That would be territorial trespass into the realm of judicial functions.
The Police must draw a line between civil and criminal matters. They should also know when to refer a complainant with a civil matter to the Court to seek redress instead of delving into it themselves.
The Appellants were rightly apprehensive of their liberty and were entitled to seek the protection of the Court. This Appeal is allowed.
Accordingly, prayer A, B, C are hereby granted. Furthermore, the Respondent are hereby restrained from harassing, detaining or infringing upon the rights of the Appellant as contained in the 1999 Constitution in connection with this matter.
I shall however make no other as to public apology to be made by the Respondents.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance the Lead Judgment just delivered by my Lord
21
the Presiding Justice and I am in complete agreement with her reasoning and conclusion that this Appeal is meritorious in that the 2nd to 4th Respondents through the instrumentality of the 1st threatened the violation of the fundamental rights of the 1st and 2nd Appellants on a purely Civil transaction between the Appellants and the 1st Respondent.
It is now trite that even though, the Police is charged with the investigation and prosecution of crimes by virtue of Section 4 of the Police Act, 2004, they have no powers to compel parties or any party to a contract to enter into an undertaking coercively to discharge the terms of the contract as the 2nd to 4th Respondents have done to the Appellants since they are not debt collectors.
In the light of the foregoing and the more elaborate reasons advanced by my Noble Lord and Presiding Justice, I also allow the Appeal and abide by the Order as to costs.
ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance, the well-considered judgment of my learned brother, Monica Bolna’an Dongban- Mensem, JCA just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein. ?
22
For the detailed reasons adumbrated in the lead judgment, I too, therefore, find merit in this appeal and I accordingly allow it. I abide myself by the consequential orders.
23
Appearances:
J.O. Onwujekwe, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Hon. Obi Anizoba, Esq. (JP) for the 1st Respondent
For Respondent(s)
Appearances
J.O. Onwujekwe, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Hon. Obi Anizoba, Esq. (JP) for the 1st RespondentFor Respondent