CLETUS ANYALENKEYA v. ENGR. GODSON ANYA & ORS
(2016)LCN/8314(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 18th day of March, 2016
CA/PH/131/2004
RATIO
COURT: JURISDICTION; WHETHER AN APPEAL FROM CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IS AS OF RIGHT
Moreover, considering the provisions of Section 245 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, and the interpretation/application of the same by the Apex Court and this Court, in the case of Pam v. Gwom (2000) FWLR (pt1) 1; Okorie v. Chukwu (2014) LPELR ? 23744 (CA) and Okereke & Ors v. Adide (2014) LPELR – 24103 (CA), can the Appellant invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this appeal outside a question of Customary Law? The law is that the right, of appeal from Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal is as of right but the appeal must relate to issue or question of Customary law; that this Court (Court of Appeal) is barred from entertaining any appeal, emanating from the Customary Court of Appeal, except the same rests on question(s) calling for the construing of issue of Customary law. See Okerie & Ors v. Chukwu (2014) 23744 (CA); Okereke & Anor v. Adide (2014) LPELR – 24103 CA; Pam v. Gwom (2000) FWLR (pt.1); Golok v. Pwam (1999) 3 NWLR (pt.139) 411. per. ITA GEORGE?MBABA, J.C.A.
APPEAL: WHETHER APPEALS ARE DISTILLED FROM THE GROUND OF APPEAL AND THE IMPLICATION OF AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION THAT DOES NOT FLOW FROM OR RELATE TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL
Appeals are considered on Issues, distilled from the grounds of appeal and, where an issue for determination does not flow from or relate properly to the ground of appeal, the same simply floats, without a base, and must be ignored or struck out. Authorities on this are replete, See the case of Musa v. State (2014) LPER – 22562 (CA); Ossai v. FRN (2013)13 WRN 87; Oseni v. Bagulu (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt.511) 813; Sheltima v. Olawepo (2012) 52 WRN 42; Igbokwe v. Edom & Ors (2015) LPELR – 25576 (CA); (2015)8 C.A.R 224. per. ITA GEORGE?MBABA, J.C.A.
COURT: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS NO DIRECT JURISDICTION OVER THE DECISIONS OF TH CUSTOMARY COURT
This Court (Court of Appeal) has no direct jurisdiction over the decisions of the Customary Court. We stated this, clearly, in the case of Eyinnaya v. Otikpo & Anor (2015) LPER – 25529 (CA), when it was held:
This Court has no power to consider, directly, appeals against what the trial Court (Customary Court) did, as if it sat on appeal over the judgment of the trial Customary Court. Our jurisdiction is over the way the Customary Court of Appeal resolved the issues and matter arising for consideration at the trial Customary Court, and so, whatever complaint the Respondent had against the decision of the trial Customary Court, should have been raised and canvassed at the Customary Court of Appeal and, where the latter failed to handle it to the satisfaction of the Respondents, then can appeal, therefore, be canvassed before us at the Court of Appeal. This Court has no jurisdiction over the decision of the Customary Court, Magistrate?s Court or District Court, until the same goes through the mill (High Court or Customary Court of appeal) and appeal there from comes to us. Therefore, to that extent that issue 1 by Respondents is a stranger to the ground one of the appeal, the same is hereby struck for incompetence.? See Ossai v. FRN (2013) 13 WRN 87; Ahmaddazomo v. Saleh Musa (2013) LPELR20761; (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt.743) 1866. per. ITA GEORGE?MBABA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CLETUS ANYALENKEYA Appellant(s)
AND
1. ENGR. GODSON ANYA
2. ONYERIO ANYALENKEYA
3. THEOPHILUS ANYALENKEYA Respondent(s)
ITA GEORGE?MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the Customary Court of Appeal, Owerri, Imo State, in Appeal NO. CCA/OW/A/36/2001, delivered on 5/6/2003 by Hon. Justices J. Obasi Iwuagwu, G.M. Nkwoada and ABC Egu, wherein their Lordships allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Customary Court in suit No. CC/NW/59/97 delivered, on 7/4/2000, and ordered a retrial of the entire suit, by another Customary Court. Appellant herein was the Plaintiff at the trial Customary Court and was Appellant at the Customary Court of Appeal.
The claims at the trial Customary Court were against the defendants, jointly and severally for:
(1) A declaration that the Plaintiff and the other sons of Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya are entitled to inherit, to the exclusion of the Defendants the Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound situate at Obilubi Obazu Mbieri in Mbaitoli Local Government Area.
(2) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of Customary Right of Occupancy over and in respect of the ?undeveloped Portion of Nwankwo
Land? situate at ObiIiubi Obazu Mbieri Mbaitoli Local Government Area.
(3) N50,000.00 general damages and for trespass into the Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound and the ?Undeveloped portion of Nwankwo land respectively.
(4) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, agents, servants and privies from further entering into Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound and the “Undeveloped portion of Nwankwo land”
(5) (1) A declaration that the Plaintiff (representative of Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya family) and the 1st Defendant are jointly entitled to inherit, and share the following items of property all situate at Obilubi Obazu Mieri
(a) Ukwu Orji (Iroko) land
(b) Uhu Eziama Lolo Nwany land
(c) Two (2) parcels of land at Anuiri Mgbakano land
(d) Chia Nwaojukwu land and
(e) Uhu Elu land.
(5) (2) An Order directing that the said property referred to in
Paragraph 5 (1) above shared and/or partitioned into 2 between the Plaintiff (representing Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya family) and the 1st Defendant.?
(See pages 1 and 2 of the Records).
At the trial Customary Court after hearing the case, that Court held against the Plaintiff and said:
?Having failed to establish his case, the plaintiff cannot succeed in claim for imaginary damages. This is so because the Defendants are, and have been, on what the Plaintiff calls Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound, just as of right and of might. So also have the Defendants built on their portions of Nwankwo land. Therefore the Defendants cannot be restrained from further entry into the so called Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound? and the so called ?undeveloped portion of Nwankwo land.? At best the Plaintiff was on a voyage of a dream discovery that has yielded him no dividend in the end ? The suit in its entirety is hereby dismissed ? Cost to the defendants, put at N100.00? Page 52 of the Records
An appeal against the above decision of the
Customary Court was what the Customary Court of Appeal, allowed and set the judgment aside and ordered a retrial before another Customary Court. This appeal is against that decision of the Customary Court of Appeal.
Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal, as per pages 124 to 129 of the Records of Appeal, disclosing 5 grounds of appeal. The Respondents also appealed, as per their cross Appeal on pages 130 to 132 of the Records of Appeal.
Appellant filed his brief of argument on 13/3/2006 and distilled three (3) Issues for the determination of the appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether after holding and/or deciding that the Plaintiff proved his claims to Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound? and the ?undeveloped portion of Nwankwo? land, was it proper for the Customary Court of appeal to remit those points or issues to the Lower Court for retrial? (Ground one of the appeal).
(2) Whether the decision by the Customary Court of Appeal that the Anyalenkeya?s family property has not been partitioned does not, according to Customary Law and tradition, create an issue of estoppels between them.
If that issue is resjudicata between the parties, is it proper to remit it (that issue or point) to the Lower Court for retrial? Is there no need to set a limit or guideline to the Lower Court on the issue or point to be dealt with during retrial? (Grounds 2 and 3).
(3) Whether it is in all cases where a trial Court fails to consider the contradiction in the defence case and also fails to make specific pronouncements concerning the subject matters of the suit, that all the entire subject matters of the suit/issues for determination are remitted for retrial. (Grounds 4 and 5)
The Respondents did not file any Respondents? brief but rather file cross-Appellants? Brief on 23/9/2004 and raised 2 (two) issues for the determination of the cross appeal, namely:
(1) Was the decision of the trial Court (Customary Court?) erroneous or perverse when it held that the Plaintiff did not prove his claim with respect to what the plaintiff called ?Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya?s compound?
(2) Was the decision of the trial Court (Customary Court
Nworienbi) erroneous or perverse when it held that Nwankwo land described by the Plaintiff as ?undeveloped portions of Nwankwo land? had been partitioned between the plaintiff’s family and the defendants’ in accordance with the Customary law of Obazu Mbieri People
Appellant, however, reacted to the Cross Appeal by filing cross- Respondent?s Brief (which he did in the same process that carried Appellant?s brief, pages 13 to 19 thereof). As cross Respondent, he raised a preliminary objection to the Cross Appeal, saying that;
(1) The issues for determination formulated by the cross Appellants do not relate to the grounds of appeal they filed.
(2) The issues formulated by the cross Appellants for determination show clearly that they are not addressing the decision of the Customary Court of Appeal, rather they are addressing only the decision of the trail (sic) Customary Court. The Court of Appeal sits on appeal over the decisions of the Customary Court of Appeal not over the decisions of a
Customary Court.
When this appeal was heard on 17/2/16, Respondents were absent, despite evidence of service of the hearing notice, on them on 5/2/16. Appellant adopted his brief and urged us to deem the Respondents’ Cross-Appellants’ Brief, filed on 23/9/04, as duly argued, and it was accordingly deemed.
Arguing the Appeal, Issue 1 Appellant said that the Customary Court of Appeal had held that the Plaintiff had proved his entitlement to the two lands in contention; thus the natural finding or decision of the Lower Court would have been an Order granting the plaintiff?s reliefs in respect of the two lands, because from the decision of the Lower Court concerning the two lands, the question of their ownership was settled, and operated as cause of action estoppels, which bars the parties from re-opening or relitigating on those causes; that it was therefore wrong to Order a retrial of the whole case. He relied on Okukuje v. Akwido (2001) 5 NSCQR 204; Odutola v. Oderinde (2004) 18 NSCQR 577.
Counsel therefore urged us to correct the Lower Court?s order in respect of the
Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya Compound and the ?undeveloped portion of Nwankwo land? and to award the reliefs claimed in respect of the two lands, since their ownership had been successfully proved by the Plaintiff.
On issue 2, Appellant said that the Customary Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence and found that the Plaintiff proved that the Anyalenkeya family property had not been partitioned between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant (DW1); that the Customary Court of Appeal was right in making the evaluation, hence the issue of non partitioning was settled and created an issue of estoppels between the parties and the case ought not be remitted back for retrial. He relied on Awoyale v.?Ogunbiyi (1989)2 NWLR (Pt.24)626; Nnajiofor v.?Ukonu (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.9)686 at 706
He said that since the issue was settled that the lands had not been partitioned, the Order for retrial was unjustifiably too wide in the circumstances of the suit; that retrial should be limited to issues not settled, and issues settled should be excluded from the Order for retrial. He referred us to Ajide Arabe v. Ogunbiyi Asanju (1980) IMSLR 48 SC.
?On Issue 3, Appellant said
the reasons given by the Customary Court of appeal for the blanket Order of retrial are (1) that the trial Court failed to consider the contradictions in the defence case and (2) failed to make specific pronouncements concerning the subject matters of the suit. He argued that without properly evaluating the evidence, the trial Court had dismissed the entire suit of the Plaintiff. But that the Lower Court (Customary court of appeal) had interfered with the findings of the trial Court, after properly evaluating all the evidence, and thereafter made specific findings; that following the specific findings it made, the Lower Court ought to have made specific pronouncements concerning the subject matter of the suit, especially matters of Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound, the undeveloped portion of Nwankwo land and the issue of partitioning. He relied on the case of Awoyale v. Ogunbiyi (1989)2 NWLR (Pt.24)626; that the Plaintiff had proved his claims on those matters.
Counsel also submitted that the contradictions in the defence case only went a long way to strengthen the Plaintiff’s case, as consideration of the contradictions favoured the Plaintiff just as
it damaged the defence case; that having made findings on the said contradictions in the defence case, the Lower Court ought to have also made pronouncement on the said contradictions.
He urged us to resolve the issues for appellant and hold that from the whole proceedings three of Anyalenkeya family lands listed in claim No.5 (1) have been admitted by the defence as family lands; that the only question in the suit for retrial is that of the Customary Court going on locus inspection of the lands for sharing or identifying the other Anyalenkeya family lands for sharing.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I have already said that the Respondents did not file any Respondents’ Brief, though they cross appealed and filed
cross- appellants’ Brief. Of course failure to file a Respondents’ brief does not accrue any legal advantages to the Appellant, as the appeal still has to be considered purely on its merits by the Appellate Court.
The three (3) Issues donated by the Appellant for the consideration of this appeal appear to revolve round the same complaint, which is, that
the Customary Court of Appeal had held for the Plaintiff that ?Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound had not been shared; that and the ?Undeveloped portion of Nwankwo? lands? was proved as exclusive entitlement of the Plaintiff (Appellant). He argued that those issues should be clearly pronounced upon and excluded from matters to be tried at the retrial, ordered by the Customary Court of Appeal. He argued that the doctrine of estoppel would operate to estop the relitigation on those issues or cause of action already settled; that the issue is resjudicata, between the parties.
In other words, Appellant was not opposed to the Order of the Customary Court of Appeal, remitting the case back to the trial Customary Court for retrial, but rather argued that the Lower Court (Customary Court of Appeal) should have set limits or given guidelines to the trial Customary Court as to the issue or point to deal with during the retrial. He concluded:
?That from the whole pleadings, three of Anyalenkeya family lands listed in claim No 5(1) have been admitted by the defence as family lands. The only question suit (sic) (suitable?) for
retrial is that of Customary Court going on locus inspection of the lands for sharing or denying the other Anyalenkeya family lands for sharing.? (See page 12 Paragraph 5 of the Appellant?s Brief.)
Appellant had appealed against ?that part of the judgment ordering a retrial of the entire suit (See page 124 of the Records).
Though, Appellant did not make any effort to disclose the relevant pages or paragraphs of the judgment of the Lower Court, which resolved the alleged issues for the Plaintiff (Appellant herein), I can see on pages 120 ? 121 of the Records, that the Lower Court said:
?The totality of the evidence showed that the pieces of land as enumerated by the Appellant/Plaintiff had not been shared. Issue 2 thus, succeeds. Issue 2 has effectively covered Issue Nos. 3,4,5 of this appeal and they all succeed. The only issue left is the proper order to be made in view of the fact that the Court did not consider the contradictions in the evidence of 1st defendant/Respondent. The Court made no specific announcement affecting the other lands in dispute,
except the parties compound and Nwankwo land. This, it ought to have made. In the circumstances and all fairness, it is ordered as follows:
(1) Appeal succeeds and the judgment of the Nwaorienbi Customary Court in CC/NW/59/97? dated 7th April 2000 is hereby set aside, including the order as to costs.
(2) There shall be a retrial of the Suit and the parties shall appear at the Customary Court, Owerri Urban, on 16th July 2003 for plea and commencement of hearing.
(3) There shall be no order as to costs.?
The issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 raises at the Lower Court for consideration, and which the lower resolved in favour of the Appellant were (as recorded on page 116 of the Records of Appeal):
(2) Was the Customary Court right to hold that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant shared Anyalenkeya family land in 1978?
(3) Did the Plaintiff not prove that ?Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya Compound? belonged exclusively to Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya?
(4) Did the Plaintiff not
prove his exclusive entitlement to the undeveloped portions of Nwankwo Land?
(5) Did the trial Customary Court property (sic) evaluate the evidence led before it in arriving at its decision?
There is no appeal against those findings and conclusions of the Lower Court (Customary Court of Appeal) that the Customary Court was wrong to hold that Plaintiff and 1st Defendant shared Anyalenkeya family land in 1978; that is, that the pieces of land as enumerated by the Plaintiff, namely; Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya Compound (which belonged exclusively to Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya) and in Paragraph 5(1) of the reliefs, had not been partitioned, but that the undeveloped portion of Nwankwo land was proved as exclusive entitlement of the Plaintiff (Appellant herein). By law any findings of Court, not appealed against, remains binding and conclusive.
See the case of Igbokwe v. Edom & Ors (2015) 8 13 CAR 224; Nnaji v. Alozie (2014) LPELR 24014 (CA) Local Govt. (2012) 5 NWLR (pt.1292) 181
It would have been simply proper to leave this matter there, and Order that those issues settled by the Lower Court cannot be
subject matter of fresh litigation. But since the Appellant had agreed with the Customary Court of Appeals findings and pronouncement, that Anyalenkeya’s family property had not been partitioned in 1978, how then can he establish his claim of exclusive right to the Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya?s Compond, which he wants us to hold as one of the settled issues?
I think it would be rather proper for the Appellant or any of the parties to raise, at the retrial, those issues he/they considered to have been settled at the Lower Court by the findings of the Lower Court, i.e., Customary Court of Appeal, including the issue, which was generally accepted that “the pieces of land as enumerated by the Appellant/Plaintiff had not been shared”, or that the undeveloped portions of Nwankwo’s land was proved as exclusive entitlement of the Plaintiff.
Moreover, considering the provisions of Section 245 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, and the interpretation/application of the same by the Apex Court and this Court, in the case of Pam v. Gwom (2000) FWLR (pt1) 1; Okorie v. Chukwu (2014) LPELR ? 23744
(CA) and Okereke & Ors v. Adide (2014) LPELR – 24103 (CA), can the Appellant invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this appeal outside a question of Customary Law? The law is that the right, of appeal from Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal is as of right but the appeal must relate to issue or question of Customary law; that this Court (Court of Appeal) is barred from entertaining any appeal, emanating from the Customary Court of Appeal, except the same rests on question(s) calling for the construing of issue of Customary law. See Okerie & Ors v. Chukwu (2014) 23744 (CA); Okereke & Anor v. Adide (2014) LPELR – 24103 CA; Pam v. Gwom (2000) FWLR (pt.1); Golok v. Pwam (1999) 3 NWLR (pt.139) 411.
I have already said that the issues raised by Appellant in this appeal touch on the complaint that the Lower Court, after making findings that there was no partitioning or sharing of the Anyalenkeya family land, should not have ordered retrial of the whole case, but should have limited the area of retrial, since the settled issues cannot be relitigated, by reason of estoppel, being resjudicata.
In the case of
Okereke & Anor v. Achiele (Supra) this Court held that “Issues relating to fair hearing, evaluation of evidence, doctrine of estoppel etc are never issues bordering on question(s) of Customary law.” See also Nwafor and Ors v. Nwosu & Anor. (2015) 9 CAR at 422 – 423.
As earlier stated in this judgment, Appellant or any of the parties can always call attention of the trial Customary Court to any issue/cause which the Customary Court of Appeal had settled during the appeal, when the case No. CC/NW/59/97 is listed for retrial. It does not, in my opinion, require this Court to rule on the same and specify what and what area of the judgment of the Lower Court constitutes rejudicata, as this Court may not have compliance to do so, in the circumstances of this appeal.
I do not therefore see any competence in this Appeal and the same is hereby struck out.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.
CROSS APPEAL
The Cross Respondent had raised a preliminary objection in his brief against the Cross – Appeal, on the ground that the issues, formulated
for the determination of the Cross – Appeal, do not relate to the grounds thereof, and that the said Issues for determination did not address the decision of the Customary Court of Appeal, but rather addressed the decision of the Customary Court.
I had earlier reproduced the 2 Issues for determination, formulated by the Cross -Appellants, in this appeal.
Their Notice of Appeal is on pages 130 to 132 of the Records of Appeal, and their two(2) grounds of appeal (without the particulars thereof) were as follows:
(1) The Learned Justices of the Customary Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to consider the Customary law of inheritance of Mbieri people in determining the ownership of the compound described by the Plaintiff/cross respondent as Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya?s compound.
(2) The learned justices of the Customary Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to consider the partitioning of family land in accordance with the customary law of Obazu, Mbieri people with particular reference to Nwankwo land described as ?undeveloped portions of Nwankwo land? by the
plaintiff/Cross Respondent.”
Even a simple glance at the above grounds, vis-a- vis, the Issues formulated by the Cross-Appellant for determination of the Cross-appeal, can show that they are unrelated. Whereas, ground one of the Cross Appeal complains about failure of the Lower Court to consider the Customary law of inheritance of Mbieri people in relation to the ownership of Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya compound, the Issue purportedly distilled from it, rather queried whether the decision of the trial Customary Court was erroneous or perverse, when it held that the Plaintiff did not prove his claim with respect to the Pa E.E. Anyalenkeya?s compound!
In the same way, whereas ground 2 of the Cross Appeal complained against the failure of the Customary Court of Appeal (Lower Court) to consider the partitioning of the family land in accordance with the Customary law of Obazu, Mbieri, with particular reference to the Nwankwo land (undeveloped portions of Nwankwo land), the issue allegedly distilled from that, is rather whether the decision of the trial Court (Customary Court, Nworienbi) was erroneous when it held that the said Nwankwo
land had been partitioned between the Plaintiff and the defendants in accordance with the Customary law of Obazu Mbieri people!
Appeals are considered on Issues, distilled from the grounds of appeal and, where an issue for determination does not flow from or relate properly to the ground of appeal, the same simply floats, without a base, and must be ignored or struck out. Authorities on this are replete, See the case of Musa v. State (2014) LPER – 22562 (CA); Ossai v. FRN (2013)13 WRN 87; Oseni v. Bagulu (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt.511) 813; Sheltima v. Olawepo (2012) 52 WRN 42; Igbokwe v. Edom & Ors (2015) LPELR – 25576 (CA); (2015)8 C.A.R 224.
The Cross-Appeal is, therefore, grossly incompetent, not only because the issues do not derive or flow from the grounds of appeal, but, more so, because the issues do not challenge the decision of the Lower Court (Customary Court of Appeal) but rather that of the trial Customary Court.
This Court (Court of Appeal) has no direct jurisdiction over the decisions of the Customary Court. We stated this, clearly, in the case of Eyinnaya v. Otikpo & Anor (2015) LPER – 25529
(CA), when it was held:
This Court has no power to consider, directly, appeals against what the trial Court (Customary Court) did, as if it sat on appeal over the judgment of the trial Customary Court. Our jurisdiction is over the way the Customary Court of Appeal resolved the issues and matter arising for consideration at the trial Customary Court, and so, whatever complaint the Respondent had against the decision of the trial Customary Court, should have been raised and canvassed at the Customary Court of Appeal and, where the latter failed to handle it to the satisfaction of the Respondents, then can appeal, therefore, be canvassed before us at the Court of Appeal. This Court has no jurisdiction over the decision of the Customary Court, Magistrate?s Court or District Court, until the same goes through the mill (High Court or Customary Court of appeal) and appeal there from comes to us. Therefore, to that extent that issue 1 by Respondents is a stranger to the ground one of the appeal, the same is hereby struck for incompetence.? See Ossai v. FRN (2013) 13 WRN 87; Ahmaddazomo v. Saleh Musa (2013) LPELR
20761; (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt.743) 1866
I therefore uphold the preliminary objection by the Cross-Respondent, that the Cross-Appeal is incompetent. Accordingly, the same is hereby struck out.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading earlier than now, the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, I. G. Mbaba, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that both the Appeal and Cross-Appeal are incompetent and they are accordingly struck out.
I abide by the orders on Costs.
PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I was given opportunity to read in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother MBABA JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion therein.
?
Appearances
A.O. Njoku, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Chief E.T.O. NjokuFor Respondent
