DAEWOO NIGERIA LIMITED v. CHRIS IHEAWARA & ANOR
(2018)LCN/12061(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 18th day of January, 2018
CA/B/218/2011
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: WHETHER THE COURT MUST DEMAND FOR PROOF OF SERVICE
“In my humble view, whenever a Court finds itself faced with this type of situation, before proceeding into hearing, it must ensure that the processes are served. It is necessary for the Court to demand for the proof of service to be relied upon and examine it critically in order to ascertain whether there has been proper service or not. This is because failure to serve a process vitiates the entire proceedings and same is rendered a nullity having been made without jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR Page 581.” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
COURT AND PROCEDURE: WHETHER THE COURT HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
“It is settled law that where a Court made an order without compliance with the rules of natural justice or is in breach of one of the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, it is vested with the inherent jurisdiction to set aside such an order. In AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK PLC VS LOSADA NIG. LTD & ANOR (Supra) at 167, the Supreme Court held among others as follows:- ‘It was essential for the motion to have been served since the Court has no jurisdiction over a person who has not been served unless he of course submits to jurisdiction. The two lower Courts were therefore clearly right when they came to the conclusion that the Judgment obtained thereon was a nullity and ought to be set aside.’ In this appeal, I am of the view that the trial Judge was wrong when he declined to set aside the Judgment on the grounds that same would amount to sitting on appeal over the Judgment of a brother Judge.” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
DAEWOO (NIG) LIMITED Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHRIS IHEAWARA
2. MACFRANKLYN ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD Respondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal emanated from the Ruling of the High Court of Justice, Delta State of Nigeria, Effunrun Judicial Division in Suit No. EHC/436/2000 between MACFRANKLYN ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD VS (1) DAEWOO NIGERIA LIMITED (2) CHRIS IHEAGWARA delivered on the 8th day of April 2011.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that by an amended statement of claim, the 2nd Respondent who was the Plaintiff at the lower Court sued the Appellant who was the Defendant before the lower Court in the following terms: –
(i) The sum of (N3,939,006.90) Three Million, Nine Hundred and Thirty-nine Thousand and Six Naira, Ninety kobo, being the cumulative unpaid invoices due but not paid by the Defendant.
(ii) 22% interest on the unpaid sum from 1988 till final Judgment, and thereafter 10% till when actual payment is made.
By an Order of the lower Court, the 1st Respondent was joined as a party.
Pleadings were duly exchanged between the parties and the case was eventually fixed for hearing to commence on 4/1/2006.
On the said 4/1/2006, when hearing of the case was supposed to commence, the Plaintiff and its Counsel were absent from Court and as a result, in accordance with the Rules of Court the suit was struck out, thereby bringing the suit to an end at that stage.
Subsequently, information got to the Appellant who was the Defendant that a default Judgment had been given against it and that garnishee proceedings had been commenced against it.
By a motion on notice filed by the Defendant/Applicant at the lower Court on 4/1/2010, the 1st Defendant i.e. the Appellant sought for the following orders:-
(1) An order staying further execution and the garnishee proceeding in the suit pending the hearing and determination of this application.
(2) An order setting aside the Judgment of the Court i.e. the lower Court entered in favour of the Plaintiff now 2nd Respondent on the 27th day of April 2010 on the following grounds:-
(i) That the Honourable Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine and enter Judgment in the said case.
(ii) That the said Judgment was obtained by fraud.
At the Conclusion of hearing, the application was dismissed in its entirety.
The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Ruling of the lower Court, appealed to this Court against the said Ruling.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are reproduced as follows:-
(1) Whether the Learned trial Judge was right in law to refuse to set aside the Judgment when the Judgment was obtained without compliance with all the conditions precedent to the exercise of Jurisdiction.
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in Law when she declined to set aside the said Judgment on grounds that same would amount to sitting on appeal over the Judgment of a brother Judge.
In his own case, the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent formulated three issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are reproduced as follows:-
(1) Whether a party who deliberately absented himself from Court on the date of hearing and abandoned the case against him in Court, can validly challenge the outcome of the case on the ground that his constitutional right of fair hearing has been infringed, and Judgment obtained can be set aside.
(2) Whether the Honourable Court acted without jurisdiction in proceeding with the Respondent?s case in the circumstances of this case.
(3) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in refusing to set aside the Judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 27th day of April 2010.
At the hearing of this appeal on 5/12/2017, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Ruling of the Delta State High Court, which was delivered on 8/4/2011. The original notice of appeal was filed on 8/4/2011. And by leave of Court, an amended notice of appeal was filed on 13/6/2013.
The Record of Appeal which was transmitted on 4/8/2011, was deemed as properly transmitted on 18/1/2017. The Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 18/1/2017. Upon receipt of the Respondent’s briefs of argument, the Appellant’s reply brief was filed on 16/3/2017.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the said briefs as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.
The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent filed a brief in which he concedes the appeal.
The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, in his own case, referred to the 2nd Respondent’s brief filed on 24/2/2017. He adopted and relied on the said brief in urging that the appeal be dismissed.
I have perused the issues formulated for the determination of the Appeal by Counsel for the parties, the issues are similar but the issues formulated by Counsel for the Appellant encapsulates the issues formulated on behalf of the Respondent. I will therefore rely on the said issues formulated on behalf of the Appellant in the determination of this Appeal.
ISSUES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in law to refuse to set aside the Judgment when the Judgment was obtained without compliance with all the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he refused to set aside the said Judgment obtained as there was no proof of service of hearing notice as required by law. He went further that the Appellant is entitled to fair hearing.
He relied on the following cases :-
– SALU VS EGEIBON (1994) 6 SCNJ Part 2 at Page 223 at 234;
– MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR Page 581 at 589 – 590;
– ACB VS ROSSEK (1993) 10 SCNJ Page 20 at 42 – 43;
– Section 36 of The 1999 Constitution.
He submitted that with the suit being struck out by the lower Court, it automatically came to an end unless it is relisted after due notice to all parties. He relied on Order 8 Rules 4 and 7 of the High Court of Bendel State Civil Procedure Rules 1988 (as applicable in Delta State).
It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the failure to serve a process vitiates the entire proceedings. He relied on – MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (Supra).
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant was not served with hearing notice after the suit earlier struck out was relisted.
He urged this Court to hold that failure to serve the motion to relist and hearing notice as required by law is a fundamental defect which goes to the root of the case. He relied on the case of: – MARK VS EKE (2004) ALL FWLR Part 200 Page 1455 at 1476.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that where a Court finds that it acted without jurisdiction, it can at any stage of the case, even upon its own motion set aside the Judgment or order to avoid a miscarriage of Justice.
He relied on TUOYO HOLDINGS LTD VS NIGER BENUE TRANSPORT CO. LTD (2007) ALL FWLR Part 356 Page 800 at 810.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant finally urged this Court to hold that the learned trial Judge was wrong in refusing to set aside the Judgment and also to allow the appeal on this ground.
The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent in his own submission, contended that once a party or his Counsel in a matter had notice of the pendency of any application against him in Court, it is his duty to diligently attend Court and follow up on the said application and not sit back and thereafter assert a breach of his right to be heard. He went further that the complaint of the Appellant was that upon the striking out of the suit on 4/1/2006, that the Motion to relist the suit was not served upon the Appellant. He went further that the said Motion was served on 30/5/2006 and the lower Court upheld the fact that it was served.
He therefore submitted that the Appellant cannot complain that he was denied right of hearing. He relied on the case of KANO ILE PLC VS G & H NIG. LTD. (2002) 2 NWLR Part 751 Page 420 at 463 Paragraphs E – H.
It was contended on behalf of the 2nd Respondent that the Appellant was duly served before the application to relist was taken and also before hearing commenced before the lower Court. He submitted that the Appellant was trying to assert an imaginary wrong to which no remedy will avail him.
Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent relied on the following cases:-
– FRED EGBE VS HON. JUSTICE BABATUNDE BELGORE (2004) 8 NWLR Part 875 Page 336 at 353, 354 Paragraphs G – C;
– JOHNSON TRIANGLE LTD/ AND ANOR VS CHARLES M.O.H & PARTNERS LTD. (2002) 15 NWLR Part 789 Page 176 at 192 Paragraphs D ? F and Page 193 Paragraphs D – G.
It was also contended on behalf of the 2nd Respondent that from the circumstances of this case that the lower Court acted within its jurisdiction both procedurally and substantially by calling on the 2nd Respondent to prove its claim in the absence of the Appellant after satisfying itself that the Appellant was duly served.
He relied on the following cases:-
– EGEVAFO EKPETO & 2 ORS VS IKONO WANOGHO & 4 ORS (2004) 18 NWLR Part 905 Page 394 at Page 411 Paragraphs A – D;
– CREDIT ALLIANCE FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD VS MALLAH (1998) 10 NWLR Part 569 Page 341 at 351 Paragraphs A – B.
The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent also submitted that the exercise of the discretionary power of a Judge can only be challenged on appeal and not before the same Judge who exercised its discretion. He relied on the case of R. A. SALU VS MADAM T.I. EGEIBON (1994) 6 NWLR Part 348 Page 23 at 53 paragraphs C – E.
He finally urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the 2nd Respondent.
In this appeal under consideration, there is no doubt that the suit before the lower Court was struck out on 4/1/2006. (See the endorsements on record of Court No. 31 on page 138 of the Record of Appeal where the suit was struck out). And with the suit at the lower Court struck out, it automatically came to an end unless it is relisted by an Order of the Court after due notice has been given to all the parties.
Under Order 37 Rules (8) and (9) of the High Court of Bendel State Civil Procedure Rules 1988 (as applicable in Delta State) which was the applicable Rules of Court as at 2006 when the suit was struck out, there is provision for setting aside Judgment obtained where one party does not appear at the trial upon such terms as may seem just, upon an application being made within 6 days after the trial or within such longer period as the Court may allow for good cause shown.
The Motion to relist the suit earlier struck out by the Lower Court is on pages 49 – 52 of the Record of Appeal. Before the application is moved it must be served on all parties. If for any reason the application is not served on parties who ought to be served, then lack of service will rob the Court of the jurisdiction to hear the application.
In this appeal, the narrow issue is whether or not the Appellant was served with the Motion to relist the suit and hearing notice before it was relisted.
A careful reading of the affidavit evidence before the lower Court showed that both parties are in dispute as to whether service of the process was effected. The Appellant denies service while the 2nd Respondent claimed that the Appellant was served and exhibited a sheet of paper on which it was hand written that a service was effected on Appellant’s Counsel through his secretary – one Uzezi Obeuwio. The said hand written paper is exhibited on page 125 of the record.
The question to be answered at this juncture is that whether the sheet of paper on page 125 could be regarded as evidence of service as required by the law. OR put in another way, whether service was proved to have been effected on the Appellant i.e. Defendant at the lower Court as required by the law.
In my humble view, whenever a Court finds itself faced with this type of situation, before proceeding into hearing, it must ensure that the processes are served. It is necessary for the Court to demand for the proof of service to be relied upon and examine it critically in order to ascertain whether there has been proper service or not. This is because failure to serve a process vitiates the entire proceedings and same is rendered a nullity having been made without jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR Page 581.
Order 12 Rule 1 of the High Court of Bendel State Civil Procedure Rules 1988 (as applicable in Delta State), provides as follows:-
”Service of Writ of Summons, Notices, Petitions, Pleadings, Orders, Summonses, Warrants and of all other proceedings, documents or written communication of which service is required shall be made by the sheriff or a deputy sheriff, bailiff, officer of the Court or by a person appointed therefore (either specially or generally) by the Court or by a Judge in Chambers, unless another mode of service is prescribed by these rules, or the Court or a Judge in chambers otherwise directs: Provided that when a party is represented by a legal practitioner, services of notices, pleadings, petitions, Orders, Summonses, Warrants and of all other proceedings documents or written communications of which personal service is not required may be made by or on such legal practitioner or its clerk under his control.”
Also Order 12 Rule 31 (Supra) provides:
”A book shall be kept at every Court for recording service or process in such form as the Chief Judge may direct, in which shall be entered by the office serving the process, or by the registrar, the names of the Plaintiff or Complainant and the defendant, the particular Court issuing the process, the method, whether personal or otherwise, of the service, and the manner in which the right person and where any process shall not have been duly served, then the cause of failure shall be stated and every entry in such book or an office matters therein stated.”
It is settled law that where notice of any proceeding is required, failure to notify any party concerned is a fundamental omission which entitles the party not served and against whom any order is made in his absence to have the order set aside on the ground that a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction for making the order has not been fulfilled.
See the following cases:-
– SCOTT-EMUAKPOR VS UKAVBE (1975) NSCC Page 435, (1975) 12 S.C. Page 41;
– DEDUWA VS OKORODUDU (1976) 10 S.C. Page 228.
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in ACHUZIA VS OGBOMAH (2016) 11 NWLR Part 1522 Page 59 at 81, this principle of law under consideration was emphasized wherein it was held among others as follows:-
It is also settled that the parties be afforded every opportunity to present their case without let or hindrance. See
– ALSTHOM S.A. VS SARAKI (2005) 1 S.C. Part 1 Page 14, (2005) 3 NWLR Part 911 Page 208;
– ISIYAKU MOHAMMED VS KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY (1968) 1 ALL NLR Page 424, (1968) SCNLR Page 588.
In this vein, it cannot be gainsaid that service of hearing notice on a party notifying him of the date and place of hearing is a sine qua non for the just disposal of the cause or matter. The service of Court processes on all parties is fundamental. We operate an adversarial system of adjudication. Therefore, failure to effect service of a process on an opposing party where service is required in law amounts to non fulfilment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court.
It is a fundamental vice that goes to the root of the entire adjudication and renders the proceedings and any order made therein null and void.
See also the following cases of
– KANO STATE POLY VS DAN AGUNDI (2002) FWLR Part 127 Page 1058 at 1061;
– MARK VS EKE (Supra).
In this appeal, it was contended on behalf of the 2nd Respondent that the Appellant was served through his Counsel whereas the said Appellant’s Counsel denied service or having any secretary by the name quoted on the paper presented as evidence of service which is on page 125 of the record of appeal. And it was not shown anywhere on record that evidence was led to resolve the conflict as to whether or not there was service.
In my humble view, the issue of whether or not there was service of the process ought to have been resolved properly in view of the conflict in evidence of service presented by the parties.
The document presented by the 2nd Respondent as evidence or proof of service which is reproduced on page 125 of the Record of Appeal is in my view neither an affidavit of service nor a record of Court showing service.
It is only when an acceptable proof of service from a bailiff of Court has been presented that the Court can presume that proper service has been effected.
See TUOYO HOLDINGS LTD VS NIGER BENUE TRANSPORT CO LTD (Supra).
The Motion to relist the suit being a process to revive a dead suit is an originating process that must be served by an officer of Court unless the Court gives a contrary order.
Furthermore, an application to relist a suit ought to be served upon the party and not the counsel, this is because the services of counsel ends upon the determination of the matter.
In RECTOR KANO POLY VS DAN AGUNDI (Supra), it was held among others as follows:-
”The document in this suit is an application to relist a suit which had been struck out for want of diligent prosecution. Such a notice does not require personal service as it is not Strictu Sensu a writ of Summons. It is however, in my respectful opinion in a way, a process initiating an action. It qualifies respectfully as an originating summons because the action having been struck out completely or effectively brought litigation to an end. The motion on notice praying for its relisting must respectfully be served on the litigants in the instant appeal, the Appellant who will freely decide to brief either the former Counsel or another Counsel of their choice.”
The document relied upon by the lower Court as proof of service which is on page 125 cannot be accepted as affidavit of service, it is a useless piece of paper which anybody could have written.
The inevitable conclusion to which I arrived at is that the Motion to relist the suit as well as hearing notice were not served upon the Appellant before the lower Court proceeded to hearing the suit and eventually delivered a Judgment.
The effect of failure to serve the motion to relist and the hearing notice on the Appellant has deprived the lower Court of the jurisdiction in the suit.
And in this type of situation where a Court finds that it acted without jurisdiction, it should at that stage and even on its own motion set aside whatever order or Judgment made so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
The Judgment delivered by the lower Court is without jurisdiction because it violates the principle of audi alterem partem, it is therefore a nullity and it is hereby set aside.
In conclusion on this issue, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge was wrong for refusing to set aside the Judgment in dispute.
This Issue No. 1 is resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the 2nd Respondent.
ISSUE NO. 2.
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law when he declined to set aside the Judgment on grounds that same would amount to sitting on appeal over the Judgment of a brother Judge.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that where a Court made an order without compliance with the rules of natural justice, fair hearing or in breach of one of the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, it is vested with the inherent jurisdiction to set it aside.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the cases of:
– AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK PLC VS LOSADA NIG. LTD. & ANOR (1995) 7 SCNJ Page 158 at 167;
– RIMI VS MARADUM (2008) ALL FWLR Part 436 Page 1982 at 1955.
He submitted that the lower Court had requisite jurisdiction to set aside the Order in dispute. He urged this Court to allow the appeal.
In his response to the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the lower Court was right when it refused to set aside the Judgment delivered on 27/4/2010. He stated that the application was filed over a period of 6 months after the Judgment, whereas it ought to bring the application within 6 days after the trial or within such longer period as the Court may allow for good cause shown. He relied on Order 30 Rule 4 of the High Court of Delta State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009.
It was contended on behalf of the Respondent that a party seeking to set aside a Judgment of Court where the time is limited, must come by way of extension of time. Learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the following cases:-
– AINA VS ABIODUN (2005) 10 NWLR Part 933 Page 375 at 388 Paragraphs D – F;
– SANUSI VS AYOOLA (1992) 9 NWLR Part 265 Page 151 at 275 Paragraphs F – H;
– AGIP NIG. LTD. VS AGIP PETROL MPL & ORS (2010) 5 NWLR Part 1187 Page 348.
He finally urged that this appeal should be dismissed.
There is no doubt that there is only one High Court of a State. The judicial divisions exist for administrative convenience.
The Judgment sought to be set aside in this appeal is that of High Court of Justice, Effunrun in Delta State.
It is settled law that where a Court made an order without compliance with the rules of natural justice or is in breach of one of the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, it is vested with the inherent jurisdiction to set aside such an order.
In AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK PLC VS LOSADA NIG. LTD & ANOR (Supra) at 167, the Supreme Court held among others as follows:-
”It was essential for the motion to have been served since the Court has no jurisdiction over a person who has not been served unless he of course submits to jurisdiction. The two lower Courts were therefore clearly right when they came to the conclusion that the Judgment obtained thereon was a nullity and ought to be set aside.”
In this appeal, I am of the view that the trial Judge was wrong when he declined to set aside the Judgment on the grounds that same would amount to sitting on appeal over the Judgment of a brother Judge.
Where a Court proceeds to determine a suit or make an order where service on party has not been effected as in this case, such Judgment or Order is a nullity and the Court is entitled to have the Judgment set aside.
Furthermore, time does not run to set aside a Judgment or Order which is a nullity. Once it is brought to the attention of the Court, it must as of necessity set aside such Judgment or Order. See ? MARK VS EKE (2004) 1 SC Part II Page 1.
In UKACHUKWU VS UBA (2005) 9 NWLR Part 930 at Page 370 particularly at 389, it was held among others that:-
”A Court can set aside its Judgment in any of the following five instances and circumstances:-
(1) When the Judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit either in the Court or of one or more parties. Such a Judgment can be impeached or set aside by means of an action which may be brought without leave. See
OLUFUNMISE VS FALANA (1990) 3 NWLR Part 136 Page 1;
– ALAKA VS ADEKUNLE (1959) LLR Page 76.
(2) When the Judgment is a nullity, a person affected by an Order of Court which can properly be described as a nullity is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside.
– SKEN CONSULT LTD VS UKEY (1981) 1 SC Page 6;
– OGUEZE VS OJIAKO (1962) 1 SCNLR Page 112;
– OKAFOR VS A.G. ANAMBRA STATE (1991) 6 NWLR Part 200 page 65 at 91.
(3) When it is obvious that the Court was misled into giving Judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it. AGUNBIADE VS OKUNUGA (1961) ALL NLR Page 110; OBIMONURE VS ERINOSHO (1966) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 250 referred to.
(4) Where the Judgment is given in the absence of Jurisdiction;
(5) Where the procedure adopted was such as to deprive the decision or Judgment of the character of a legitimate adjudication.”
See also the following cases:-
– S.A. OMOKEWU & ORS VS ABRAHAM OLABANJI & ANOR (1996) LPELR 2648 (SC);
– CHIME VS CHIME (2001) 1 S.C. Part II Page 1;
– ONU VS IDU (2006) 12 NWLR Part 995 Page 657;
– JEV & ANOR VS S.D. IYORTOM & ORS (2015) LPELR ? 24420 (SC);
– BELLO VS INEC (2010) 8 NWLR Part 1196 Page 342 (SC).
Consequent upon the foregoing, this Issue No. 2 is also resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the 2nd Respondent.
In the result with the resolution of the two issues for determination in this appeal in favour of the Appellant and against the 2nd Respondent, it is my view that there is merit in the appeal and it is hereby allowed.
The Ruling of the lower Court in Suit No. EHC/436/2000 between MACKFRANKLYN ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD VS (1) DAEWOO (NIG) LIMITED (2) CHRIS IHEAGWARA delivered on 8th day of April 2011 is hereby set aside. And in its place, the application of the Appellant before the lower Court is hereby granted, the Judgment of the lower Court entered in favour of the Plaintiff now 2nd Respondent on 27th day of April 2010 is hereby set aside.
The Appellant is entitled to costs which is fixed at (N100,000.00), One hundred thousand Naira against the 2nd Respondent.
Appeal allowed.
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA. I am in tandem with the reasoning and conclusions reached. It is my ardent view that this appeal is meritorious and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the Ruling of the lower Court delivered on the 8th day of April, 2011 in Suit No. EHC/436/2000 is hereby set aside. Also the judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 27th day of April, 2010 is hereby set aside.
I abide by the consequential order as to costs of (N100,000.00), One hundred thousand naira against the 2nd Respondent.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA.
His Lordship has adequately dealt with the issues in contention and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein.
I also hold that the appeal has merit and it is hereby allowed. I abide by the consequential orders made in the leading judgment including order as to costs.
Appearances:
MR. E. OTROFANOWEI with him, G. Austine-Nyekigbe (Mrs.)For Appellant(s)
No Legal Representation for the 1st Respondent.
MR. MICHAEL EKWEMUKA for the 2nd Respondent.For Respondent(s)
