EMERALD ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED & ANOR V. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC.
(2010)LCN/4117(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 1st day of December, 2010
CA/A/38/M/2007
RATIO
GROUNDS OF APPEAL: WHETHER A GROUND OF APPEAL MUST RELATE TO THE JUDGMENT APPEALED AGAINST OR THAT IT MUST ATTACK THE JUDGMENT APPEALED AGAINST
It is trite that the general principle concerning a ground of appeal is that it must relate to the Judgment complained against or that it must attack the Judgment appealed against. But a complaint of lack of Jurisdiction by a lower Court is in my view an attack on the Judgment of the lower Court. In Ejikenme V. Amaechi (1998) 3 NWLR Part 542 Page 456 it was held among others as follows:- “A party who is appealing against a Judgment can properly found its complaints not only against the error of commission by the tribunal concerned but also against an error of omission. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF A PROCEEDING CONDUCTED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SAME
The issue of jurisdiction of a court to try a suit is a fundamental and threshold one. If a court has no Jurisdiction to determine a subject matter, the proceedings therefore are and remain a nullity however well conducted and brilliantly decided. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: ESSENCE OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
It is trite that the issue of Jurisdiction strikes at the root of any cause or matter. Consequently it raises the issue of competence of the Court to adjudicate in any particular case. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES: CONSEQUENCE OF THE FAILURE TO SERVE PROCESS WHERE SERVICE IS REQUIRED
The law is settled that failure to serve process where service is required goes to the root of the Court’s conceptions of the proper procedure in litigation. Service of process on the defendant so as to enable him appear to defend the relief being sought against him is a fundamental condition precedent to the Courts acquisition of jurisdiction and competence. Where there is no service or there is a procedural irregularity in service, the subsequent proceedings are a nullity abnitio. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES: WHETHER SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS IS A PRE-CONDITION TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COURT
IN EIMSKIP LTD. V. EXQUISTE IND. LTD (2003) 4 NWLR (PT.809) 88 at 122 paragraphs H-A, Tobi JSC had this to say; Service is a pre-condition to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Where there is no service or there is a procedural fault in service, the subsequent proceedings are a nullity ab initio. This is based on the principle of law that a party should know or be aware that there is a suit against him so that he can prepare a defence. If after service he does not put up a defence the law will assume and rightly too for that matter, that he has no defence. But where a Defendant is not aware of a pending litigation because he was not served, the proceedings held outside him will be null and void.” See CRAIG V. KANSEEN (1943) 1CB 256; SKENCONSULT (NIG) LTD V. UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6; OKE V. AIYEDUN (1986) 2 NWLR (PT. 23) 548. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
(1) EMERALD ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED
(2) ENGINEER SEGUN APAOKAGI Appellant(s)
AND
INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC
(Formerly known as Gateway Bank Plc) Respondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in Suit No. – FCT/HC/CV/784/05 delivered on the 30th day of November 2005.
The Respondent as Plaintiff by an action commenced at the lower Court claimed against the Appellants who were Defendants the following reliefs:-
“(1) The sum of =N=18,035,089.63 (Eighteen Million, Thirty Five Thousand, Eighty Nine Naira and Sixty-Three Kobo) being the balance due and owing to the Plaintiff from the Defendants as principal sums borrowed with interest accruing thereon on account number 1071400000468, maintained by the Defendants with the Plaintiff.
(2) Interest at the rate of 19% (nineteen percent) per annum on the above figure of =N=18,035,089.63 (Eighteen Million, Thirty Five Thousand, Eighty Nine Naira and Sixty-Three Kobo) from the 1st day of February 2005 until Judgment is delivered and thereafter interest at the rate of 10% per annum until Judgment debt is finally liquidated.
(3) The sum of =N=11,238,291.27 (Eleven Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety One Naira and Twenty Seven Kobo) being the balance due and owing to the Plaintiff from the Defendants as principal sum borrowed, with interest accruing thereon on account number 1071400000468, maintained by the Defendants with the Plaintiff.
(4) Interest at the rate of 19% (nineteen percent) per annum on the above figure of =N=11,238,291.27 (Eleven Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety One Naira and Twenty Seven Kobo) from the 1st day of February 2005 until Judgment is delivered and thereafter interest at the rate of 10% per annum until Judgment debt is finally liquidated.”
According to the Record of Appeal the Defendants now Appellants were served with the Writ of Summons on the 28th day of October 2005 by substituted service.
As a result of the failure of the Defendants/Appellants to appear in the Court, the Court entered Judgment against the Defendants as per the Writ of Summons on the 30th day of November 2005.
The Defendants/Appellants dissatisfied with the said Judgment now appealed to this Court.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants formulated three issues for determination set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether having regard to the Provisions of Order 11 Rule 28 and 31 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure Rules), the 1st and 2nd Appellants could be said to have been served with the Writ of Summons in this action (Ground 1).
(2) Whether from the materials before the Court, the learned trial Judge was right to have heard and delivered Judgment in this case under the undefended list (Grounds 2, 3 and 4).
(3) Was the learned trial Judge right when he awarded interest at the rate of 19% per annum on either of the Judgment sum with effect from the 1st day of February 2005?”
The learned Counsel for the Respondent also formulated two issues for determination. They are set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether the proof or return of service upon which the proceedings of the lower Court was conducted was credible to enable the learned trial Judge assume Jurisdiction to entertain the entire proceedings, having regard to the fact that the service was by substituted means on both Appellants through the 1st Appellant, a Limited Liability Company in tandem with the Order for substituted service.
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge rightly exercised his discretion when he placed the matter under the undefended list and came to a correct decision when he proceeded to hear the matter as undefended in entering final Judgment based on the uncontradicted evidence before him, when the Appellants chose to stay away from the proceedings.”
At the hearing, learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to the Notice of Preliminary Objection contained in the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 24/6/09.
He relied on the Preliminary Objection in urging that this appeal be struck out.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the Appellants Reply Brief filed on 6/7/09. He submitted that the Preliminary Objection is substantially an abuse of the process of Court. He urged that the objection be dismissed.
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
The Respondent contended that the appeal is incompetent, reason being that all the grounds of appeal are not an attack against the Judgment of the lower Court.
He relied on:-
– Lawrence Oredoyin & 2 Others V. Chief Akala Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR Part 114 Page 172 at 211 Paragraphs F-H.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that to sustain the Grounds 1 & 2 of the Amended Notice of Appeal, further evidence will be required to ascertain whether or not from the Record Book of Service of the lower Court, (which is not part of the record) compiled by the Appellants themselves, there was a breach or non-compliance with Order 11 Rule 31 of the Rules of the lower Court. He argued further that in the absence of such evidence, this court is bound to presume that there was such compliance and will not entertain such complaint. And that the burden of supplying the evidence is on the Appellants who alleges.
He relied on:-
– Sections 149(d) and 150(1) of the Evidence Act.
He went further in his submissions that the nature of particulars in Ground 2 requires calling additional evidence which were available before the lower Court.
He relied on the following cases:-
– Fadiora & Another v. Gbadebo & Another (1973) 3 S.C. page 219 at 247:
– Alhaji Aliyu Abubakar v. Lawrence Manulu (1998) 10 NWLR Part 568 page 41.
He also submitted that issues for determination must be formulated upon Grounds of Appeal filed against the Judgment; failure to satisfy the condition will lead to striking out of such issue. He relied on the case of:-
– Agro chem. Ltd V. Kudu Holdings Ltd (2001) FWLR part 33 page 254 at 266 -267.
It was also contended that Grounds 3, 4 & 5 can only stand if Grounds 1 & 2 of the Amended Notice of Appeal stands. And unless the Defendant on appeal can show that there was no lawful service or notice of the proceedings on him, it would be difficult to interfere with the discretion of the lower Court to act on the only uncontradicted evidence available on the record. He relied on the cases of:-
– Jammal Engineering Ltd. v. B.I.S.R. Nig. Ltd (1972) All NLR Page 326 at 330:
– Lawrence Oredoyin & 2 Others V. Chief Akala Arowolo & 2 Others (Supra) Page 205 Paragraphs C-F:
– Texaco Panama Inc. V. S.P.C. Ltd (2002) FWLR Part 96 Page 571 at 605.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent therefore urged that this Appeal be struck out.
In his response the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the complaint by the Respondent is misconceived. He referred to the Judgment of the lower Court at Page 39 of the Record of Appeal.
He went further that even though a ground of appeal must relate to the Judgment complained against, the issue of lack of Jurisdiction is also related to the Judgment concerning Grounds 3, 4, & 5. He stated that there were no material before the Court to justify entering Judgment for the Respondent.
He finally submitted that the Preliminary Objection is misconceived and should be dismissed.
It was submitted by the Respondent that the appeal is incompetent because the grounds of appeal are not an attack against the Judgment of the lower Court.
The said Judgment as contained in the Record of Appeal Page 39 is as follows:-
This suit is under the undefended list. The Defendants are absent despite service of Court process as ordered by the Court. See the affidavit of service to the effect by Bailiff dated 28th day of October 2005. The Defendants have not filed any notice of intention to defend as enjoined under Order 21 Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court. By that therefore, the provision of Order 21 Rule 4 comes to play. To that end Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants as per the Writ of Summons.”
Grounds 1 and 2 of the Grounds of Appeal as contained in the Amended Notice of Appeal are hereby set out without their particulars as follows:-
“Ground 1
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he assumed Jurisdiction to enter Judgment in this action in the absence of the originating process on the Defendants.
Ground 2
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he proceeded to hear and deliver Judgment in this case under the undefended list when the conditions precedent to the application of Order 21 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory was not met.”?
A careful examination of Grounds 1 and 2 of the Grounds of Appeal as set out above would reveal that the two Grounds of Appeal are complaining of lack of Jurisdiction by the lower court because of the failure of the lower court to observe the condition precedent to the application of order 21 of the High court Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal Capital Territory 2004.
The issue of jurisdiction of a court to try a suit is a fundamental and threshold one. If a court has no Jurisdiction to determine a subject matter, the proceedings therefore are and remain a nullity however well conducted and brilliantly decided.
It is trite that the general principle concerning a ground of appeal is that it must relate to the Judgment complained against or that it must attack the Judgment appealed against. But a complaint of lack of Jurisdiction by a lower Court is in my view an attack on the Judgment of the lower Court.
In Ejikenme V. Amaechi (1998) 3 NWLR Part 542 Page 456 it was held among others as follows:-
“A party who is appealing against a Judgment can properly found its complaints not only against the error of commission by the tribunal concerned but also against an error of omission.”
In the circumstance, even though Grounds 1 & 2 of the Grounds of Appeal could not be said to have emanated directly from the Judgment, nonetheless they affect the validity of the Judgment, they are therefore competent grounds.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent stated in Paragraph 4.9 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument that Grounds 3, 4 and 5 could only arise if Grounds 1 and 2 of the Amended Notice of Appeal stands.
Consequent upon my view above that Grounds 1 and 2 of the Amended Notice of Appeal are competent therefore Grounds 3, 4 and 5 properly arose from the Judgment of the lower Court.
In view of the foregoing the Notice of Preliminary Objection lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
I will now deal with the Appeal on its merit.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the brief filed on 4/6/07.
He also referred to the Appellant’s Reply to the Respondent’s Brief filed on 6/7/09.
He adopted the two briefs of argument as his argument in urging that the Appeal be allowed.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 27/6/09. He adopted the said Respondent’s Brief of Argument as his argument in urging that the Appeal be dismissed.
I have carefully examined the issues formulated for determination on behalf of the parties in this Appeal and it is my view that issue No. 1 formulated on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Appellants is the fulcrum upon which this Appeal rotates and it is capable of determining the Appeal. Apart from that it encapsulates issues 1 and 2 formulated by learned Counsel for the Respondent. Therefore, I adopt the said issue 1 formulated on behalf of 1st and 2nd Appellants for the determination of this Appeal.
The issue is set out as follows:-
“Whether having regard to the Provisions of Order 11 Rules 28 and 31 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure Rules) the 1st and 2nd Appellants could be said to have been served with the Writ of Summons in this action.”
The Appellants contended that they were not served with the writ of summons and other processes of the Court. They also stated that they were not aware of the pendency of the action until sometime in January 2007.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that there is an affidavit of service deposed to by one Narcissics H. O., a bailiff of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. See page 37 of the record.
He also referred to Order 11 Rules 28 and 31 and submitted that there is no service at all on the 2nd Appellant.
He submitted that an affidavit of service that failed to mention the name of the person served is bad in law. He relied on the following cases of:-
-Ranco Trading Co. Ltd V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (1998) 4 NWLR Part 457 Page 566:
-Wimply Ltd. V. Balogun (1986) 3 NWLR Part 28 Page 234:
-Hamp-Adams V. Hall (1911) 2 K.B. at Page 942:
-Schroder & Co. V. Major & Co. Ltd (1989) 2 NWLR Part 101 Page 1.
He went further in his submissions that 1st and 2nd Appellants were not served with the Writ of Summons by reason of the failure of the bailiff to comply with the provision of Order 11 Rule 31.
He finally urged the Court to hold that service of document particularly a Writ of Summons under the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules can only be proved by a compliance with the combined provisions of Order 11 Rules 28 and 31.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own case submitted that the issue of service on the 2nd Appellant is speculative and a gamble and does not contain substantial or arguable Appeal.
He stated that the unchallenged fact are that service of the Originating Processes were effected by means of substituted service on the two Appellants jointly by pasting same on the last known address of the 1st Appellant.
He submitted further that for an allegation of non-service on the 2nd Appellant to be sustainable, there must or ought to be particulars disclosing that 1st and 2nd Appellants at a point became separable and brought such change of relationship to the express knowledge of the Respondent.
In the absence of such contrary proof, the lower Court was entitled to the protection of presumption of regularity and the right to have assumed Jurisdiction on the available proof of service. He relied on the following:-
– Section 150(1) of the Evidence Act 1990:
– Okesaji V. Lawal (1991) 1 NWLR Part 170 at 661 at 673 Paragraphs F-G
– National Bank of Nigeria Ltd V. Mobal Jimosol Nig. Ltd. & 2 Others (1982) C. A. Vol. II Part 1 Page 297 at 303 – 304.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Respondent that under Order 11 Rules 5(1) (b), 8 & 12 of the rules of the lower Court, where it is established that a party is an agent of another and the cause of action is within Jurisdiction, service through the agent will be good service. He relied on the case of:-
– Eimskip Ltd V. Exquisite Ind. Ltd. (2003) 4 NWLR Part 809 Page 88 at 115 -116.
He also submitted that there is credible affidavit of service in compliance with Order 11 Rule 28 of the Rules of the lower Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Respondent.
This Appeal touches on the validity of the service of the Writ of Summons and other processes of the lower Court on the 2nd Appellant.
It is the service of the Writ of Summons and other processes on the Defendants/Appellants that confer Jurisdiction on the Court. Where there is no service or no good service the Court will be robbed of its Jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
It is trite that the issue of Jurisdiction strikes at the root of any cause or matter. Consequently it raises the issue of competence of the Court to adjudicate in any particular case.
In this case it was contended on behalf of the Appellants that there was no service at all on the 1st and 2nd Appellants. A careful examination of the affidavit of service relied upon by the Respondent which is at Page 37 of the Record of Appeal revealed that “Emerald Engineering Limited and 1 Other” were served. The 2nd Appellant’s name was not mentioned on the affidavit of service.
Order 11 Rules 28 and 31 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules provides that-
“(28) Where the service of a document is effected by a bailiff or other officer of the Court, an affidavit of service sworn to by the bailiff or other officer shall on production, without proof of signature, be prima facie evidence of service.”
“(31) Every Court shall keep a book for recording service or process in such form as the Chief Judge may direct, in which shall be entered by the officer 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 person serving ascertained that he served the process on the right person and where any process has not been duly served, then the cause of failure shall be stated and every entry in the book or an office copy of any entry shall be prima facie evidence of the several matters stated in it.”
The affidavit of service relied upon by the Respondent and the lower Court is in my view defective and vague because even though 1st Appellant was served, the same could not be said in respect of 2nd Appellant… “and 1 Other” as it appeared in the affidavit of service is different from “Engineer Segun Apaokagi” who was the 2nd Defendant at the lower Court.
In Craig v. Kassen (1942) K.B. Page 256, the affidavit of service was endorsed with an address other than address for service already provided by the Defendant and Lord Green M. R. observed:-
“the affidavit of service in the present case, was on the lace of it, insufficient and no order should have been completed on the strength of it.”
Also in Ranco Trading Company Ltd V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (1998) 4 NWLR Part 547 Page 566 the bailiff deposed to an affidavit stating that the processes were served on a “receiving clerk” Ayoola JCA (as he then was) at Page 573 opined thus:-
“The statement that that the processes were served on a “receiving clerk” not named or identified otherwise is too vague to make a denial of the fact a real conflict. Where a statement of fact is vague, that statement fails by reason of its uncertainty……..
In my Judgment the purported service by leaving the writ of summons with an unnamed “receiving clerk” in the registered office of the Appellant does not meet any of the requirements in Order 6 Rule 11 of the Rules or Section 36 of the Companies Act 1968.”?
See also – Schroder & Co. V. Major & Co Nig. Ltd (1989) 2 NWLR Part 107 Page 1.
In this case, it is my view that the affidavit of service relied upon is on the face of it irregular and it cannot be a prima facie evidence of service on the 2nd Appellant.
At this stage it is also necessary to consider the provision of Order 11 Rule 31 set out earlier in this Judgment.
The 1st and 2nd Appellants contended that they were not served with the Writ of Summons by reason of the failure of the bailiff to comply with the provision of Order 11 Rule 31.
My view as far as the said rule is concerned is that it is not only to strengthen proof of service but also to prevent the mischief of some bailiffs and other officers of the court in slotting into the file an affidavit of service at any time that a dispute arises on the issue of service. See the following cases:-
– Hamp-Adams V. Hall (1911) 2 K.B. Page 942:
– Schroder & Co. V. Major & Co Ltd (Supra).
Consequent upon the foregoing, it is my view that where there is no credible proof that the 2nd Appellant was served with the Writ of Summons and other court processes in fulfillment of the condition precedent required by law, the court will lack the Jurisdiction to enter Judgment as it has done in this case. If a Court lacks Jurisdiction for any reason it would not be competent to entertain the matter or suit placed before it and so it would amount to a share waste of precious and valuable time for that Court to embark on a purported hearing or determination of the suit. The simple reason for that is, no matter how well such proceedings were conducted, they would be without the necessary legal authority and a nullity, “ab initio”.
See also the following cases:-
-Leedo Presidential Motel Ltd V. Bank of the North Ltd. (1998) 10 NWLR Part 570 Page 353 at 381:
-Ayayi V. Military Administrator of Ondo State (1997) 5 NWLR Part 504 Page 237:
-N. S. Engineering Co. V. Ezenduka (2002) 1 NWLR Part 748 Page 469:
-Odutola V. Kayode (1994) 2 NWLR Part 324 Page 1 at 15:
-Olutola V. University of Ilorin (2005) 3 WRN Page 22 OR (2004) 18 NWLR Part 905 Page 416.
In the instant case it is very clear that the 2nd Appellant was not served, and the Court lacked the Jurisdiction to have proceeded and entered Judgment. At that stage the lower Court should have ordered for proper service since service on “….. and 1 Other” is not the same as Engineer Segun Apaokagi the 2nd Defendant/Appellant. But since the Respondent wanted to proceed against 1st and 2nd Appellants, the matter should have been transferred to the general cause list instead of entering Judgment against the 1st and 2nd Appellants.
In view of my decision on this issue, the Judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 30th day of November 2005 is hereby set aside, in its place the suit is hereby sent back to the chief Judge of the High court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja for re-assignment to another Judge who will hear the case without further delay.
There shall be no order as to cost.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.: I have read a draft of the lead judgment written by my learned brother BADA, JCA in this appeal. His Lordship had lucidly and fully considered the preliminary objection to Grounds 1 and 2 of the Appeal and the germane issue that calls for decision in the Appeal.
I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions that the preliminary objection lacks merit and fails while the Appeal deserves to succeed. Consequently, I join in dismissing the preliminary objection and allowing the appeal in all the terms of the lead judgment for the reasons set out therein which I adopt.
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.: I read in draft, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Bada, JCA, and I agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusion arrived thereat. Clearly there is no proof that the 2nd Appellant, Engineer Segun Apaokagi was properly served with the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim.
The law is settled that failure to serve process where service is required goes to the root of the Court’s conceptions of the proper procedure in litigation. Service of process on the defendant so as to enable him appear to defend the relief being sought against him is a fundamental condition precedent to the Courts acquisition of jurisdiction and competence. Where there is no service or there is a procedural irregularity in service, the subsequent proceedings are a nullity abnitio.
IN EIMSKIP LTD. V. EXQUISTE IND. LTD (2003) 4 NWLR (PT.809) 88 at 122 paragraphs H-A, Tobi JSC had this to say;
Service is a pre-condition to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Where there is no service or there is a procedural fault in service, the subsequent proceedings are a nullity ab initio. This is based on the principle of law that a party should know or be aware that there is a suit against him so that he can prepare a defence. If after service he does not put up a defence the law will assume and rightly too for that matter, that he has no defence. But where a Defendant is not aware of a pending litigation because he was not served, the proceedings held outside him will be null and void.”
See CRAIG V. KANSEEN (1943) 1CB 256; SKENCONSULT (NIG) LTD V. UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6; OKE V. AIYEDUN (1986) 2 NWLR (PT. 23) 548.For this short comment and the more elaborate and lucid reasons in the lead judgment, this Appeal is allowed by me. I abide by all the consequential orders made in the judgment aforesaid including order as to cost.
Appearances
Mr. M. I. HANAFIFor Appellant
AND
Mr. J. O. DANIEL-EBUNEFor Respondent
