DANIEL MUKE LAU v. EMMANUEL BANDAWA
(2019)LCN/13369(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 28th day of May, 2019
CA/YL/13/17
RATIO
EVIDENCE: CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: NATURE
In BASSEY V. STATE (2012) LPELR-7813 (SC) P.23, PARAS. E-F (also reported in (2012) 12 NWLR PT. 1314, P.209) his lordship, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC on the nature of contradictory statement/evidence held thus:
Evidence contradicts another evidence when it says the opposite of what the other evidence has stated, and not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them. See GABRIEL V. STATE 1989 5 NWLR PT.122 P.460. Two pieces of evidence contradicts one another when they are themselves inconsistent on material facts. (underlined mine for emphasis).PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE:INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE: ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TOWARDS INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE
Their evidence is inconsistent with each other in that it is difficult to determine which one represents the truth. The attitude of the Courts generally is to reject such evidence. See,ONUBOGU V. STATE (1974) 9 SC 1, MOGAJI V. CADBURY NIGERIA LTD. (1985) 2 NWLR 393, YUSUF V. OBASANJO (2006) ALL FWLR (294) 387, AJONYE V. NWACHUKWU (2011) LPELR-3677 (CA) and OKAFOR V. OKAFOR (2018) LPELR-43979 (CA). I hold that in such situation the trial Court in this case ought to have treated the testitmonies of the witnesses (DW1, DW2 and DW3) that were at variance or inconsistent as unreliable.PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES ARE CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE
On conflicting evidence, in JOHN AGBO V. THE STATE (2006) LPELR-242 (SC) P.17, PARAS. A-C (also reported in (2006) 1 S.C. (PT.11) P.73, (2006) 2 FWLR (PT.311) P.2385 and (2006) 6 NWLR (PT.977) P.545) his lordship Ogbuagu, JSC held thus:
There is no doubt and this is also settled, that where two or more witnesses, testify in a criminal prosecution, and the testimony of such witnesses is contradictory and irreconcilable, it would be illogical to accept and believe the evidence of such witnesses. See, ONUBOGU V. THE STATE (1974) 9 SC 1 at 20; (1974) 4 ECSLP-403; NASAMU V. THE STATE (SUPRA) at 159; NWOSU V. THE STATE (1986) 4 NWLR (PT.35) 348 and OREPEKAN & 7 ORS.; AMADI & 2 ORS. V. THE STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT.314) 644, 11 SCNJ 68 at 78PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: VISIT TO LOCUS IN QUO: PURPOSE
In NIGER CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. OKUGBENI (1987) LPELR-1993-(SC) P.10. PARAS. C-D the Apex Court held thus:
No Court visits the locus just for the fun of it. Such a visit may be undertaken if it would help the Court resolve some doubts or conflicts about contain aspects of the oral testimonies in court.
Similarly, in ATANDA V. ILIASU (2012) LPELR-19662 (SC) P.20, PARAS. C-E his lordship, Ogunbiyi, JSC held thus:
.The purpose and significance of such visit has been emphasized in the case of OBA E. A. IPINLAIYE II VS. CHIEF CORNELIUS OLUKOTUN (1996) 6 MAC 146 wherein it was held at 157 thus:-The purpose of an inspection of a locus by a Court of law is not to substitute the eye for the ear but rather to clear any doubt or ambiguities that may arise in the evidence or to resolve any conflict in the evidence as to physical features.PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
JUSTICE
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
DANIEL MUKE LAUAppellant(s)
AND
EMMANUEL BANDAWARespondent(s)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the judgment of the Taraba State High Court delivered on the 11th day of October, 2016 presided over by A. B. Abbare, J.
The Appellant as plaintiff at the trial Court claimed title over the fish pond which the Appellant called Daseh Muke. The appellant made out that the land upon which the fish pond is situated and the surrounding land were inherited by the appellant from his father. At the trial Court the appellant called three witnesses, the respondent also called three witnesses. At the close of the trial judgment it was entered in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant appealed to this Court. Three issues were formulated for the determination of the appeal as follows:
1. Whether the appellant claiming title to the fish pond known as Daseh Muke can rely on acts of long possession as well as ownership and use of surrounding lands in addition to traditional history to proof (sic) his case? (Distilled from ground 1, 2, and 4 of the notice of appeal).
2. Whether the failure by the trial judge to visit the locus in quo
1
to ascertain the identity of the fish pond which was clearly in issue occasioned miscarriage of Justice?(Distilled from ground five of the notice of appeal).
3. Whether failure of the trial judge to properly evaluate the evidence placed before him has occasioned miscarriage of Justice? (Distilled from ground three of the notice of appeal).
The respondent on his part adopted the three issues as distilled by the Appellant.
In arguing the appeal, the learned counsel to the Appellant A. T. Chior Esq. adopted and relied on his amended brief of argument filed on 7/1/2018 which was deemed properly filed and served on 7/3/2018 and further deemed properly filed and served on 4/3/2019 as his argument in this appeal in urging us to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court. In arguing his first issue, it was submitted that the Appellant pleaded how the fish pond known as Daseh Muke was founded and showed how the fish pond had been used by his family for a long period and exhibited the receipts of the yearly tax paid by his family over the fish pond thus successfully proving long possession, acts of ownership and use of
2
surrounding land to the fish pond. The Appellants pleadings in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 and 29 of the Appellants statement of claim were reviewed, pages 76-82 of the printed records of appeal. It was submitted that the land wherein the fish pond is situated formed part of the Appellants fathers land which was inherited by his father from his grand father who founded the land and used the land for farming. It was submitted that the Appellant also relied on traditional history to trace the root of title to the land and to show how the land was founded, used, inherited by his father and subsequently inherited by him. Further, that the appellant successfully proved traditional history of how he got the fish pond as well as other means. It was submitted that the Appellant proved the precise identity of the fish pond. Acts of ownership was said to have been established through Exhibits A1-4, receipts of payment of yearly tax over the fish pond, long possession and use of the fish pond. Evidence in support was said not to have been contradicted. See. FATILEWA V. STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT.347) 495 at 721-722
3
PARAS. F-B, THE STATE V. OLADOTUN (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 586) 399 at 410 PARA. E. Evidence of long possession was said not to have been impeached. See, ANYAFULU V. MEKA (2014) ALL FWLR (PT.731) 1510 at 1526, PARAS. A-B, TAIWO V. ADEGBORO (2011) ALL FWLR 584 at 67, PARAS. E-F, GENEVA V. AFRIBANK (NIG.) PLC (2013) ALL FWLR 1632 at 1679, PARAS. A-B amongst others. Further, that the Appellant was able to prove that the fish pond in question is surrounded by other lands belonging to his family. SeeJINADU V. ESUROMBI-ARO (2009) 9 NWLR (PT.1145) PAGE 89, PARAGARPHS E-G and OYADARE VS. KEJI (2006) 2 WRN PAGE 24, LINES 5-25.
In arguing his issue two, it was submitted that the fish pond claimed by the Appellant is different from the one being claimed by the Respondent, therefore that the identity of the fish pond was in issue. The evidence of the PW1, PW2, PW3, DW1, DW2 and DW3 were reviewed to the effect that while the Appellants witnesses testified that the fish pond is at Daseh muke in Lau, Local Government Area, Taraba State, the Respondents witnesses DW1 and DW3 testified that the fish pond is at Bandawa area of Karim Lamido Local Government Area
4
of Taraba State and not Lau Local Government Area, while the DW2 testified that the fish pond is at Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State which is contradictory. See, AGBO V. STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.309) 1380 at 1399 PARA. B. The evidence of the DW1 and DW2 were said to be clearly contradictory. We were urged to treat the evidence of the Respondents witnesses as unreliable. It was argued that the learned trial Courts refusal to visit the locus in quo to clear the discrepancies as to the location of the fish pond was wrong, page 116 of the records. See,MUAZU V. UNITY BANK (2014) 3 NWLR (PT.1395) PAGE 536, PARAS C-A. It was the contention of the learned counsel to the Appellant that the refusal to visit the locus in quo was a denial of the Appellants right to fair hearing. It was argued that the visit would have ascertained that the Appellant is the true owner of the fish pond and that the refusal led to a miscarriage of Justice. See, UKA V. IROLO (2002) FWLR (PT.127) 1167 at 1199 PARAS. C-E, AMADI V. NNPC (2000) FWLR (PT. 9) 1527 at 1554-1555, PARAS. H.B.
On the third issue, the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court
5
was faulted. The evidence of the DW2 was faulted to the effect that it has no nexus with the case at hand. The evidence of the DW1 and DW2 were said to be contradictory and at variance with one another. It was submitted that the trial Court failed to evaluate the evidence before it. See, ONWUGBELU V. MEZEBUO (2013) 23 WRN PAGE 115, LENES 105, AJAGBE V. IDOWU (2011) 17 NWLR (PT.1276) PAGE 44, PARAGRAPHS G-H, SPLINTERS (NIG.) LTD V. OASIS FINANCE LTD (2013) 39 WRN at PAGES 174-179, LINES 45-10 and EBBA V. OGODO (2000) FWLR (PT.27) PAGE 2134-2135, PARAGRAPHS H-A.
In response, the learned counsel to the Respondent, F. O. America Esq. adopted and relied on his amended brief of argument filed on 24/4/2018 deemed properly filed and served on 16/5/2018 and further deemed properly filed and served on 4/3/2019. Learned counsel adopted the said brief as his argument in this appeal in urging us to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the trial Court. On issue one, it was submitted that in a declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case and not the weakness of the defence. See, ANYAFULU VS. MEKA (2014) ALL FWLR (PT.731) 1510 at
6
1530, G-H; 1523, H-B. It was submitted that at the trial Court the Appellant pleaded that the disputed fish pond was founded by and named after his father Daseh Muke at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the amended statement of claim, at pages 76-82 of the printed records of appeal while under cross examination the Appellant and his two witnesses maintained that it was the appellants grandfather that first founded the fish pond and on the demise of the Appellants grand father, the Appellants father inherited the fish pond and after the death of the Appellants father, the Appellant inherited the fish pond, the evidence of the PW1, PW2 and PW3 under cross examination were reviewed, pages 98-99, 100 and 104-107 respectively. It was argued that with this contradiction and variation in the pleadings and evidence, the appellants root of title has collapsed. It was submitted that parties are bound by their pleadings. See, EGOM VS. ENO (2008) 11 NWLR (PT.1098) 320 at 342 343 H-B. Further, that the trial Court was right to have found at pages 182-198 that the traditional history of the appellant is inconclusive and contradictory based
7
on his pleadings and oral evidence before the Court. See, JEU VS. DOLO (2012) ALL FWLR (PT.641) 1513 at 1540, B-C. Further, that the receipts of yearly revenue paid on the fish pond were neither dated nor the amount paid stated. It was submitted that only five receipts were pleaded, while only four were tendered. It was reargued that the appellant failed to establish by his pleadings and oral evidence his root of traditional evidence based on the evidence adduced by him before the trial Court. See, OYADARE V. KEJI (2005) ALL NWLR (PT.247) 1583 at 1586, EZE & 6 ORS. V. ATASIE & 3 ORS. (2000) 79 LRCN, PAGE 1993 at 2003, INTERNATIONAL ILE INDUSTRIES (NIG.) LTD. VS. ADEREMI (2000) 1 NLLC 275 at 330 E-F and UKAEGBU VS. NWOLOLO (2009) VOL. 169 LRCN P.210 at 244. It was concluded on this issue that the appellant who failed to establish his root of title by traditional history can not be given a second chance to fall back on acts of possession and the use of surrounding lands as a substitute for traditional history but, could only rely on acts of possession in addition to traditional history.
In arguing the second issue, it was conceded by the learned
8
counsel to the Respondent that it is the partys pleadings that often guide the Court in ascertaining the identity of a land in dispute, in this case the fish pond. It was submitted that from the appellants pleadings, the respondents statement of defence at the trial and the cross-examination of the plaintiff (Appellant) as the PW3 it is clear that the parties know the fish pond the subject matter of their dispute, reference was made to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the appellants statement of claim. It was submitted that the lower Courts failure to visit the locus in quo did not occasion a miscarriage of Justice. It was argued that the mere fact that parties called the fish pond by different names is immaterial where parties are shown to have known the identity of the land where the fish pond is situated. See, ODUBOTE V. OKAFOR (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 419 at 421. It was the contention of the learned counsel to the Respondent that it is the defendant that can properly raise the issue of the identity of the land which must be contained in his statement of defence otherwise it would fail. See, BURUTOLOU V. YEIBAKE (2015) ALL FWLR
9
(PT.771) 1534 at 1550-1551, G-A. Further, that whether any witness or party in the case stated that the land is in Lau L.G.A. or Karim Lamido L.G.A. all of Taraba State, it is immaterial since by their pleadings the parties know the identity of the fish pond in dispute. The trial Court was said to have been right to have held that the identity of the land where the fish pond is located was not in issue at the trial.
On the third issue, it was submitted that whether the DW2 testified that the disputed land is in Lau L.G.A. contrary to what other witnesses said, ascribing different names or location to a land in dispute is not an issue provided that the identity of the land is well known to the parties, it was argued that it is a mere discrepancy. Further, that the appellant was unable to pin point where the trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence before the Court and that a miscarriage of Justice was occasioned. See, GBADAMOSI VS. DAIRO (2007) ALL FWLR (PT.357) 812 at 817 PARAS. G-H, AGALA & ORS. VS. EGWENE & ORS. (2010) ALL FWLR (PT.532) 609 at 1614 at 1630 PARAS. B-E. It was concluded that the trial Court properly evaluated the
10
evidence before it before arriving at its decision.
In the appellants reply brief it was submitted that the appellant successfully gave evidence of ownership of the surrounding land to the fish pond, within which the fish pond is located, inside the vast land belonging to the appellant while the respondent did not show by evidence of possession of land close to the fish pond.
On the visit to locus, it was submitted that a visit to the locus in quo would have ascertained if the respondents Bandawa people share boundaries with the fish pond since the parties gave conflicting traditional root of title in their pleadings. The judgment of the trial Court was said to be perverse because of the Courts failure to visit the locus.
From the issues raised by the Appellant which were adopted by the Respondent, I would adopt same in the determination of the appeal but would resolve issue two first, which alleged lack of fair hearing which led to the decision of the trial Court and a miscarriage of Justice. The Appellant made out that the fish pond claimed by him in this case is different from the fish pond being claimed by the
11
Respondent. The Appellant pleaded that he is the owner and in physical possession of the fish pond which is situated at Daseh Muke in Lau, Local Government Area, Taraba State, paragraph 4 of his pleadings, page 76 of the printed records of appeal. Further, at paragraphs 28 and 29 of his pleadings, page 80 of the printed records of appeal that the fish pond is surrounded by the land which he inherited from his father many years ago and that he has been in possession undisturbed. The Appellant pleaded that the fish pond has boundaries with his other farm lands on three sides (East, South and North) and River Benue to the West. On the other hand, the Respondent on his part, in paragraph 8 of his statement of defence averred that the Bandawa people (where he belongs) have the land surrounding the fish pond in dispute, to the East the farm land of Lesku Mase and one Hamman Adama, to the West is the land of Maisamari Madin and Sarkin Gumba Halilu, to the North the farm land of the Respondents parents Gama Lau and Ndah. In paragraph 19 of his statement of defence, at page 33 of the printed records, the respondent averred that he does not share any common
12
boundary with the Appellant who is from Lau area of Lau Local Government whereas the Respondent is from Bandawa area of Karim-Lamido Local Government Area of Taraba State. In respect of the evidence in support, the PW3, the appellant under cross examination at page 106 of the printed records pleaded the names of those who issued him with the revenue/tax receipts. Exhibits A1, A2, A3 and A4 as Peter Kitari, Haruna Musa and Audu Wawi (a fishing officer) all of Lau Local Government Council. The PW2 (Linus Godwin) in paragraph 4 of his statement on oath admitted that the fish pond is in Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State and is situated at Daseh Muke which tallied with the Appellants stand. The DW2 (Haruna Jiddah) at page 113 of the printed records under cross examination testified that the fish pond is in Lau Local Government Area. But, the DW1, the Respondent at page 110 of the printed records under cross examination testified that the fish pond in dispute is situated at Karim Lamido Local Government and not Lau Local Government Area. The DW2 had also testified at page 53, paragraph 1 of his statement on oath that the fish pond the subject matter
13
of this suit is situated at Bandawa area of Karim Lamido Local Government Area of Taraba State. On the part of the DW3 (Anthony Aguda), he testified that the fish pond is in Lau Local Government Area, page 114 of the printed records of Appeal. The witness testified that River Lamgowei is the boundary between Lau Local Government and Karim Local Government. It is clear that the identity, location, boundaries of the fish pond in dispute are in issue as there were contradictions from the evidence of the respondents witnesses as to the location of the fish pond subject matter of this appeal. The evidence of the respondents witnesses is inconsistent as to the identity of the fish pond in dispute. The identity of the fish pond being claimed by the parties is material. In BASSEY V. STATE (2012) LPELR-7813 (SC) P.23, PARAS. E-F (also reported in (2012) 12 NWLR PT. 1314, P.209) his lordship, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC on the nature of contradictory statement/evidence held thus:
Evidence contradicts another evidence when it says the opposite of what the other evidence has stated, and not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them. See GABRIEL V. STATE
14
1989 5 NWLR PT.122 P.460. Two pieces of evidence contradicts one another when they are themselves inconsistent on material facts. (underlined mine for emphasis).
The identity and location of the fish pond in dispute is a material fact which ought to be ascertained before the dispute could be properly ascertained. If the identity of the fish pond is properly determined it would influence the proof of the fish pond in dispute and would help to ascertain the traditional history through which both parties have claimed, moreso where the parties are in no way related by blood.
On the other hand, the DW1 and DW2 are witnesses to the Respondent whose testimonies were at variance on a material issue of the identity of the fish pond. Their evidence is inconsistent with each other in that it is difficult to determine which one represents the truth. The attitude of the Courts generally is to reject such evidence. See,ONUBOGU V. STATE (1974) 9 SC 1, MOGAJI V. CADBURY NIGERIA LTD. (1985) 2 NWLR 393, YUSUF V. OBASANJO (2006) ALL FWLR (294) 387, AJONYE V. NWACHUKWU (2011) LPELR-3677 (CA) and OKAFOR V. OKAFOR (2018) LPELR-43979 (CA). I hold that in
15
such situation the trial Court in this case ought to have treated the testitmonies of the witnesses (DW1, DW2 and DW3) that were at variance or inconsistent as unreliable. On conflicting evidence, in JOHN AGBO V. THE STATE (2006) LPELR-242 (SC) P.17, PARAS. A-C (also reported in (2006) 1 S.C. (PT.11) P.73, (2006) 2 FWLR (PT.311) P.2385 and (2006) 6 NWLR (PT.977) P.545) his lordship Ogbuagu, JSC held thus:
There is no doubt and this is also settled, that where two or more witnesses, testify in a criminal prosecution, and the testimony of such witnesses is contradictory and irreconcilable, it would be illogical to accept and believe the evidence of such witnesses. See, ONUBOGU V. THE STATE (1974) 9 SC 1 at 20; (1974) 4 ECSLP-403; NASAMU V. THE STATE (SUPRA) at 159; NWOSU V. THE STATE (1986) 4 NWLR (PT.35) 348 and OREPEKAN & 7 ORS.; AMADI & 2 ORS. V. THE STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT.314) 644, 11 SCNJ 68 at 78
It is on record at page 116 of the printed records of appeal that the learned counsel to the appellant applied to the Court to visit the locus, the land where the fish pond is situated for the reason that the location of the fish
16
pond is not certain because some of the witnesses stated that it is in Lau Local Government Area while some stated that it is in Karim Lamido Local Government. The learned counsel opposed the application for the reason that the issue before the Court is the proof of the subject matter in contention irrespective of where it is located. The trial Court held that the propriety and or otherwise to embark on such visit would be considered before giving the final judgment, pages 116-117 of the printed records. The trial Court in its judgment, at page 196 of the printed records held that the identity of the land where the fish pond is located was not an issue. I am of a contrary view. The appellant described the location of the fish pond, it was different from that of the respondent. The respondents witnesses also gave different or conflicting testimonies as to the location and boundaries of the fish pond. The essence of a visit to locus in quo is to clear doubts which might have arisen about the conflicting evidence or misrepresentation of facts by either side where there is conflicting evidence in relation to the object,
17
boundaries and features in respect of land in dispute as has arisen in this case. The trial Court ought to have resolved these conflicting accounts of the location of the particular fish pond and its boundaries by a visit to the locus, it may affect the Justice of the case. With such a visit, the trial Court would have seen where the fish pond is located and asked questions at the locus as to who the boundary neighbours are and who between the parties has been in possession of the fish pond and the surrounding pieces of land. In NIGER CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. OKUGBENI (1987) LPELR-1993-(SC) P.10. PARAS. C-D the Apex Court held thus:
No Court visits the locus just for the fun of it. Such a visit may be undertaken if it would help the Court resolve some doubts or conflicts about contain aspects of the oral testimonies in court.
Similarly, in ATANDA V. ILIASU (2012) LPELR-19662 (SC) P.20, PARAS. C-E his lordship, Ogunbiyi, JSC held thus:
.The purpose and significance of such visit has been emphasized in the case of OBA E. A. IPINLAIYE II VS. CHIEF CORNELIUS OLUKOTUN (1996) 6 MAC 146 wherein it was held at 157
18
thus:-The purpose of an inspection of a locus by a Court of law is not to substitute the eye for the ear but rather to clear any doubt or ambiguities that may arise in the evidence or to resolve any conflict in the evidence as to physical features.
See, alsoBRIGGS V . BRIGGS (1992) LPELR-804 (SC) PP.32-32, PARAS. D-A, where it was decided by the Apex Court that when a conflict occurs in the evidence of both sides as to the existence or non-existence of a state of fact relating to a physical object, such a conflict can be resolved by visualizing the object, material thing, scene of the incident or property in litigation. The Apex Court also held that it is desirable for the Court to apply its visual senses in aid of its sense of hearing. This is so because this form of evidence, often referred to as real evidence, is the most satisfactory form of proof. See,MUSTAPHA V. OLAYINKA & ORS. (2018) LPELR-4498 (CA) PP. 37-38, PARAS. C-B.
I hold that a visit to the locus would have enabled the trial Court ascertain the claim of the plaintiff, as to the ownership of the fish pond. The visit to the locus would have determined with certainty
19
the identity of the fish pond which was in issue. The refusal to visit the locus in quo, the fish pond did not give the trial Court an opportunity to confirm the identity of the fish pond in question, the boundaries and the ownership of the surrounding portions of land, which led to a miscarriage of Justice. I resolve issue two in favour of the Appellant.
In view of the resolution of issue two in favour of the appellant, a visit to the locus would be necessary. Therefore it would be unnecessary to resolve issues one and three. I would allow the appeal on issue two alone. The appeal is meritorious, I allow same. I order that the case be remitted back to the Chief Judge of Taraba State for trial de novo by another judge other than A. B. Abbare, J. of the Taraba State High Court. A visit to the locus is to be conducted in course of the trial.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother CHIDI NWAOMA UWA JCA. For the reasons contained in the lead judgment which I adopt as mine, I too allow the
20
appeal and order that the matter be remitted to the Chief Judge of Taraba State for trial de novo by another Judge of the High Court of Taraba State other than A.B. Abbare J.
I abide by the order made as to costs
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I agree.
21
Appearances:
A.T. Chior, Esq. holding the brief of F.D. Nzarga, Esq.For Appellant(s)
F.O. America, Esq.For Respondent(s)
>
Appearances
A.T. Chior, Esq. holding the brief of F.D. Nzarga, Esq.For Appellant
AND
F.O. America, Esq.For Respondent
