ENENCHE v. MINISTER OF THE FCT & ANOR (2021)

ENENCHE v. MINISTER OF THE FCT & ANOR

(2021)LCN/15022(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, February 03, 2021

CA/A/649/2016

RATIO

JURISDICTION: HOW IS JURISDICTION OF A COURT DETERMINED

Now, I agree with the Respondents’ Counsel that in considering whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the Court is guided by the claim before it by critically looking at the writ of summons and the statement of claim which I will now do. PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE: FACTORS GUIDING THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO EVIDENCE

The considering factor in the circumstance is the weight to be attached to the evidence as tendered.

In the case of AYENI VS. DADA (1978) SC 35 for instance, the Supreme Court held that while admissibility of a document may be made under the Evidence Act, the weight to be attached to its contents is another matter. The principle of law is well settled that admissibility of a document does not necessarily convey the weight to be attached to the document admitted. See the case of YAHAYA & ANOR VS. DANKWANBO & ORS (2016) LPELR – 48364 (SC). PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF A PERSON FOR A WRONGFUL ACT

The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts. PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS POWER TO FORCE A PARTY TO GIVE THE PARTICULARS AND THE EXTENT OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE PROPOSES TO CALL IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEADINGS

The trial Court has no power to force a party to give the particulars and the extent of the evidence which he proposes to call in the exercise of his right to decide whether to adduce evidence in support of his pleadings or not. See the case of MOBIL OIL NIG. LTD VS. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE (1977) 3 SC 1 AT 15. PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ADO WILLIAMS ENENCHE APPELANT(S)

And

1. MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY 2. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S)

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a Writ of Summons dated 30th April, 2010 and filed on the same date, amended on the 5th October, 2010 and further amended on the 12th of June, 2012, the Appellant as Plaintiff at the trial Court instituted an action against the Respondents, who were defendants at the trial Court. The Appellant sought for the following reliefs against the Respondents thus:
1. A declaration that the Statutory Right of Occupancy granted to the Plaintiff by the Defendant over Plot 4120, Asokoro District (A04), Abuja measuring 2441.45mm2 through a letter of offer dated the 20th August 2009 is still valid.
2. An Order of Court directing the Defendants to reverse its decision on the illegal Revocation of the piece of land situate in Plot 4120, Asokoro District (A04) Abuja, Measuring 2441.45mm2.
3. An Order of Court directing the defendant through its agents to recognized and give effect to all land right provided by law and pertaining to the Plaintiff in respect of Plot 4120, Asokoro District (A04), Abuja.
4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from granting or allocating

plot 4120, Asokoro District (A04), Abuja to any other person.
5. Cost of this action.

Before delving into the appeal, I wish to provide hereunder a summary of the facts involved in this appeal.

The Appellant claims that sometime in 2001, he applied for a piece of land from the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory wherein he enclosed photocopy of his Tax Clearance Certificate, passport photographs, bank draft for the sum of N21,000 (Twenty One Thousand Naira Only) and photocopy of Birth Certificate.

The Appellant also claims that he was subsequently allocated a piece of land at Plot No. 4120 Asokoro measuring 2441.45m2 Asokoro District (A04) via a letter of offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy dated 20th day of September, 2009.

The Appellant claims that on the 29th day of September, 2009, he was served with a Notice of Revocation of Right of Occupancy from the department of land administration with Ref File Number: AB21971 Federal Capital Territory Abuja and the only ground for the Revocation was “Discretion by Authority”

The Appellant also claims that the said plot given to him was then reallocated by the 1st and 2nd

Respondents to one Ibrahim Zayyad Mohammed.

The Appellant also claims that he immediately contacted his attorney who wrote a letter to the 1st Respondent complaining of the wrongful/illegal revocation of the Right of Occupancy and the 2nd Respondent subsequently sent a letter to the Appellant that he should present some document at the 2nd Respondent’s office and no further action has been taken by the 1st Respondent in that regard.

The Appellant at the trial Court opened his case on the 9th day of December, 2014. The Appellant himself testified as PW1 tendering documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits 1 – 4(a) as follows:
EXHIBIT 1 – Receipt of payment issued to the Appellant by the 2nd Respondent.
EXHIBIT 1(a) — Acknowledgment slip of the land application form also issued to the Appellant by the Respondents.
EXHIBIT 2 – A letter dated 18th March, 2010 by the Federal Capital Territory Administration, Land Department Administration addressed to the Appellant.
EXHIBIT 3 – Letter of investigation by the Federal Capital Territory Administration dated 9th April, 2010 and address to the Appellant.

EXHIBIT 4 – Certified True Copy of the offer of statutory right of occupancy dated 20th May, 2009.
EXHIBIT 4(a) – Original Letter of acceptance by the Appellant dated 24th August, 2009.

The Appellants closed its case on the 25th February, 2015 and the matter was adjourned for the defence to open its case.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents opened their defence on the 26th February, 2015 and called a witness, DW1 who tendered documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits 6 and 7, thus:
EXHIBIT 6 – The Petition, a Certified True Copy dated 3rd August, 2009 to the Honourable Minister.
EXHIBIT 7 – Certified True Copy of the withdrawal letter dated 4th September, 2009 to the Minister Federal Capital Territory from the Director Land.

The Respondents then closed their case on the 26th February, 2015 and the matter was adjourned to 4th May, 2015 for adoption of final written addresses. The Appellant and the Respondents then filed their respective addresses and adopted them on the 10th November, 2015 and the matter was adjourned to 8th February, 2016 for judgment.

After considering the evidence led by

parties, the learned trial judge, Honourable Justice D. Z. Senchi delivered judgment in the suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1465/2009 on the 10th May, 2016 wherein the trial judge gave judgment in favour of the Respondents.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 8th August, 2016 and filed on the 9th August, 2016 comprising of Five (5) grounds of appeal. The Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal on the 13th March, 2017 comprising of Five (5) grounds of appeal which was deemed on the 10th May, 2018.

Parties in the appeal before this Court filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument.

In the Appellant’s brief of argument as settled by his counsel Michael K. Bielonwu Esq., and filed on the 13th March, 2017, the following issues for determination were distilled from the grounds of appeal as follows:
1. Whether the allegation of Crime made against the Appellant by the Respondents was proved beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the decision of the Trial Court that Exhibits 1 (a) and 4 are illegal, null and void. Ground 1.
2. Whether the allegation of crime made against the

Appellant by the Respondents was proved beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the decision of the Trial Court that Exhibit 1(a) and 4 are illegal, null and void. Ground 2.
3. Whether from the avalanche of cogent and verifiable evidence before the Trial Court, the Respondents rightly and validly revoked the Appellant’s title over Plot 4120, Asokoro District, Abuja in line with the provision of Section 28 of the LAND USE ACT. From Ground 3.
4. Whether the Trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant’s claim was bereft of evidence and therefore abandoned because the witness statement on oath of his sole witness was according to the Trial Judge, deposed to before the Plaintiff/Appellants Counsel. Ground 4 and 5.

The Respondent on the other hand filed their Brief of Argument dated 25th September, 2018 and settled by their Counsel. In the said brief, the following issues for determination was raised:
1. Whether having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced at the Trial, the Appellant has proved its claims and the learned Trial Judge was justified in refusing the reliefs claimed by the Appellant. (Ground 1, 2 and 3)

Whether the learned Trial Court properly evaluated, considered and weighed all the issues and evidence before it in arriving at its decision. (Ground 4 and 5)The Appellant on the other hand also filed his Reply Brief of Argument dated 21st June, 2019 and filed on the same day in response to the Respondents’ Brief of Argument and settled by their Counsel Micheal K, Bielonwu Esq.The submissions of Counsel in the respective briefs of arguments shall be subsumed in the consideration of all the issues by this Court.
This Court however wish to adopt the issues for determination formulated by the Appellant’s Counsel in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument and shall consider same thereon.

With regards to Issue One, the Appellant has argued that he adduced sufficient evidence of title over Plot 4120, Asokoro District, Abuja, during trial before the trial Court and also tendered a Certified True Copy of the offer of statutory right of occupancy and duly certified by them and admitted without any form of objection by the Respondents.

Counsel further argued that the said Certified True Copy of the Appellant’s statutory right of occupancy is a

conclusive proof of the Appellant’s title and that there is also a presumption of genuineness in favour of all Certified True Copies. On this point, counsel cited the case of NBA VS. KALEJAIYE (2016) 6 NWLR (PT. 1508) 393.

The Respondents’ Counsel in his Brief of Argument has raised an issue of jurisdiction on the grounds that there are disparities in the name of the Appellant on the Writ of Summons, statement of claim and witness statement on oath before the Court from the name given by him during his testimony as PW1.

In response to the argument of the Appellant on Issue One, the Respondents’ Counsel argued that the Appellant has made a huge capital of Exhibit A while under-emphasizing the defect therein that rendered it null and void. Counsel further argued that there are certain conditions that precede the issuance of Statutory Right of Occupancy which were not met by the Appellant.

The Respondent’s Counsel also argued that presumption of genuineness of documents cannot supersede the power of the Court to examine documents and that even the said document does not contain the name and position of the person who certified the said document.

Counsel further submitted that the Appellant failed to call any witness either outside or within the office of the 1st Respondent’s establishment to corroborate his claims.

The Appellant’s Counsel also in the Appellant’s Reply Brief of Argument has argued that the fact that the witness statement on oath was filed before a commissioner for oath and signed by him is evident on the record and if there is any other defect not obvious on the face of the witness statement on oath it is a mere irregularity.

On Issue Two, the Appellant’s Counsel argued that the Respondents alluded that the Appellant fraudulently obtained Exhibits 1(a) and 4, however same was never proved beyond the production of Exhibit 6 and 7 and failed to prove the allegation of fraud beyond reasonable doubt.

The Respondent’s Counsel on the other hand responded that in civil cases, matters are on balance of probability.

On issue Three, the Appellant’s Counsel argued that the Notice of Revocation was not validly revoked in line with Section 28(5) of the Land Use Act.

The Respondent on the other hand argued in response that the Honourable Minister of Federal Capital

Territory can only revoke a validly allocated land and not one that is null and void.

On Issue Four, the Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the Appellant’s claim was not bereft of evidence in that the Appellant’s sole witness was sworn before the trial Court and the witness statement on oath deposed to before a commissioner for oath of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

On the other hand, the Respondents’ Counsel argued that the Appellant did not swear to his witness statement on oath before a Commissioner for Oath but in his Counsel’s office against the combined provisions of the Evidence Act and the Oaths Act.

It is now pertinent for this Court to consider the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Respondents’ Counsel in their Brief of Argument.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
I agree with the argument of the Counsel to the Appellant contained in paragraph 2.12 – 2.14 of the Reply Brief of Argument that by virtue of Order 10 Rule 1 and 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, the Respondents are not allowed to smuggle in a Preliminary Objection into the Respondents’ brief. However, since jurisdiction is a

constitutional issue, this Court will proceed to determine the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the Respondent.

Looking at the Writ of Summons filed by the Appellant as contained in page 1 of the Record of Appeal, the name of the plaintiff is ADO WILLIAMS ENENCHE, the statement of claim contained at page 4 of the Record of Appeal has the same name, the witness statement on oath has the same name, the amended writ of summons, the amended statement of claim and amended witness statement on oath has the same name, the further amended statement of claim and the further witness statement on oath also has the same name.

The Appellant who himself testified as the sole witness in his case as PW1 in his testimony contained at page 305 described himself as ADOYI WILLIAMS ENENCHE and adopted his witness statements on oath dated 5th October, 2010 and 12th June, 2012 on the 25th February, 2012 which

is the amended witness statement on oath contained at page 69 of the Record of Appeal and the further witness statement on oath contained at page 146 of the Record of Appeal.

The said ADOYI WILLIAMS ENENCHE went further during cross-examination to explain that he is the same person described in the Writ of Summons and statement of claim as contained at page 311 of the Record of Appeal. His passport photograph was attached to both statements on oath which is a determinant to ascertain whether he is one and same person who appeared before the trial Court.

The argument of the Respondents’ Counsel is not that the Appellant is not the same as the person who appeared at the trial Court to testify but that the name of the Appellant who sued as Plaintiff at the trial Court is different from that of the witness who testified before the trial Court. The Respondents’ Counsel even agreed in his argument at paragraph 4.2 of the Respondents Brief of Argument that the Appellant himself was the sole witness at the trial Court.

It is therefore my humble view that the Appellant is one and the same person with the witness (PW1) who testified at the trial Court.

I hereby dismiss the Respondents’ argument and submission on the point and hold firmly that this Court has the jurisdiction to hear this appeal as I have considered from my findings above, the Appellant is one and same person as the PW1 at the trial Court.

MAIN JUDGMENT
ISSUE ONE
Without beating about the bush, I will go straight into addressing the issue before me and it is my view which I strongly hold that even as I agree with the argument of the Appellant’s Counsel on Issue One that Exhibit 4 were certified by the Respondents and it is the said Certified True Copy that he tendered in Court without objection and therefore, there is a presumption of genuineness to the document. It is also not in doubt that the Respondents pleaded fraud with its particulars in their Statement of Defence as contained at page 194 – 195 of the Record of Appeal basically alleging that the said statutory right of occupancy was gotten fraudulently as it was not issued by the Respondents to the Appellant.
The considering factor in the circumstance is the weight to be attached to the evidence as tendered. In the case of AYENI VS. DADA (1978) SC 35 for

instance, the Supreme Court held that while admissibility of a document may be made under the Evidence Act, the weight to be attached to its contents is another matter. The principle of law is well settled that admissibility of a document does not necessarily convey the weight to be attached to the document admitted. See the case of YAHAYA & ANOR VS. DANKWANBO & ORS (2016) LPELR – 48364 (SC).
It therefore follows that because a party in a suit did not object to an admissible document in law, such as the CTC of Exhibit 1(a) and Exhibit 4 tendered in evidence does not affect the weight the Court will attach to such documents and that in my opinion was what the trial Court did in his judgment especially at pages 342 – 346 of the Record of Appeal.
Looking at the said Exhibits 1(a) and Exhibit 4, it is clear on the face of it that it was signed for on behalf of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory but it is not evident by whom. The name of the person who signed on behalf of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory would have gone a long way in determining that the Respondents actually issued the Appellant with Exhibit 1(a)

and Exhibit 4 especially now that the Respondents are complaining that the said Exhibits were illegally and fraudulently obtained and forged by one Albert Adeyi Bello. The hands of this Court is tied in the circumstance to nod in total affirmation to the decision of the trial Court on this issue as contained in page 342 – 346 of the Record of Appeal. I hereby resolve Issue One in favour of the Respondent.

ISSUE TWO
As regards Issue Two, I disagree with the Respondents’ Counsel in his argument that civil cases are always decided on the balance of probabilities. An allegation of fraud by the Respondents in their Statement of Defence is an allegation of crime and as the Appellant’s Counsel has argued, commission of crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt whether in civil or criminal proceedings which I verily agree with. See the case of ABDULRAHMAN VS. ODUNEYE (2009) 17 NWLR (PT. 1170) 220, wherein the Court stated that one cannot infer fraud as fraud must be positively proven and not inferred. The Court said at page 235 that Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act provides that when the commission of a crime by a party is in issue in any

proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is synonymous to the present Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
Section 135 (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 also states that the burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts.
The question now would be whether the Respondent had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt?
The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts. This means that the Respondents had the responsibility to prove the allegation of fraud which they had done first by pleading it in their statement of defence, calling the witness DW1 and also by the documents they tendered.
I do not understand the reasoning behind the argument of the Appellant’s Counsel that the Respondents alluded that the Appellant fraudulently obtained Exhibits 1(a) and 4, however same was never proved beyond the production of Exhibits 6 and 7. Is the Appellant’s Counsel trying to say that numerous exhibits must be produced to prove a party’s case? The trial Court has no power to force a party to

give the particulars and the extent of the evidence which he proposes to call in the exercise of his right to decide whether to adduce evidence in support of his pleadings or not. See the case of MOBIL OIL NIG. LTD VS. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE (1977) 3 SC 1 AT 15. That aside, though, the DW1 gave evidence contained at page 315 of the Record of Appeal that there are usually officers assigned to accept application forms for land allocation and then sign the acknowledgment slip on behalf of the Minister (the 1st Respondent). The Respondents then complained that the said Exhibit 1(a) and even Exhibit 4 was not signed by a named officer on behalf of the Respondents and same is evident before this Court on the face of it. Also, from Exhibits 6 and 7, it is obvious that the Respondents in the course of the work of the committee on falsification of land title documents, discovered that the Plot 4120, Asokoro District subject matter of the suit leading to this appeal, was fraudulently allocated to the Appellant and pursuant to that, the Respondents upon establishment by the said committee requested the 1st Respondent to withdraw the allocation which was done by

the 1st Respondent through the Notice of Revocation by one Dr. James Abonhese. The Respondents also denied issuing the Exhibit 1(a) and Exhibit 4 which unfortunately on the face of it does not show any name of officer of the Respondent who signed on behalf of the Respondents. If that was done, probably, it would have removed the virus of fraud and ascertained that the documents were actually gotten or issued by the Respondents. I am of the view that the allegation of fraud was proved by the Respondents. In addition to my findings under Issue One, I here again agree with the decision of the trial Court and hold in agreement that the allegation of crime made against the Appellant by the Respondents was proved beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the decision of the trial Court that Exhibit 1(a) and 4 are illegal, null and void. This issue is hereby resolved in favour of the Respondents.

ISSUE THREE
On issue three, having in mind all my findings on Issue One and Two and having upheld the decision of the trial Court on the point, I agree with the submission of the Respondents’ Counsel and will say there is no need to stress on this issue, as if Exhibits

1(a) and Exhibit 4 were not signed by a known officer on the face of the documents. There is no issuance of these documents in the first place since it was not proved to have been issued by the Respondents, Therefore, there is nothing that could have been said to have been revoked by the Respondents. This point is thus resolved against the Appellant.

In addressing the argument of the Respondents’ Counsel on Issue Two which argument is also contained at page 4.5 of the Respondents’ Brief of Argument, it is clear to me that the said statement on oath deposed to by the Appellant on the 5th October, 2010 was formally deposed to by the Appellant before the Commissioner for Oath of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. However, the further witness statement on oath deposed to by the Appellant on the 12th of June, 2012, does not carry the stamp of the Commissioner for Oath and it cannot therefore be safely said that the said further witness statement on oath was taken before a Commissioner for Oath. See pages 71 and 148 of the Record of Appeal. I would have been of the view that even though the further witness statement on oath of the

Appellant at the trial Court was not sworn before a person duly authorized to take oaths in contravention of the Evidence Act 2011, the subsequent adoption of the written deposition after he had been sworn in open Court to give oral evidence regularizes the deposition. I would also have been of the view that the further witness statement on oath which have been adopted during oral evidence on oath are different from mere affidavit evidence which stand on their own without any oral backup and which are not subjected to cross-examination and that where a witness is in Court to say he/she is adopting an irregular written deposition, the implication is that the witness is re-asserting on oath what is contained in the otherwise defective deposition and such adoption on oath makes all the evidence in the written deposition admissible. However, all these views must give way to the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of BUHARI VS. INEC (2008) 12 SCNJ 1 AT 91. In that case, the Supreme Court unequivocally agreed with the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out the depositions of the Appellant’s witnesses sworn before a Notary Public who was also counsel in the

chambers of the senior counsel to the Appellant which was in violation of Section 19 of the Notary Publics Act and 83 of the Evidence Act (now Section 112). The term “affidavit” is Medieval Latin for “he has declared on oath”. It is a formal sworn statement of fact signed by the deponent and witnessed as to the veracity of the deponent’s signature by the taker of oaths, such as the Commissioner for Oaths, Notary Public. It has been accepted that a Judge or Magistrate could also take such oaths. An affidavit must comply with the requirements as set out in Sections 107 – 120 of the Evidence Act 2011.
In addition, however, since the Appellant gave evidence to the fact that both witness statements on oath were sworn to before his Counsel and in the office of his Counsel, the hands of the Court is tied to do only one thing and that is justice. The concept of oath taking involves:-
i. The deponent making a statement in writing.
ii. The document is taken to a Commissioner for Oaths or any person duly authorized to take the oath.
iii. The Commissioner for Oaths requires the deponent to swear on a holy book particular to the deponent’s faith or

a mere declaration for a deponent whose faith forbids him to swear.
iv. The Commissioner for Oaths then asks the deponent to verify what has been stated.
v. The deponent afterwards signs in the presence of the Commissioner for Oaths who witnesses that the affidavit was sworn to in his presence. This explains the phrase “Before me” usually signed by the Commissioner for Oaths.
Any arrangement order than the above amounts to a nullity. Section 117(4) of the Evidence Act is clear on this, it provides as follows:-
“An affidavit when sworn shall be signed by the deponent or if he cannot write or is blind, marked by him personally with his mark, in the presence of the person before whom it is taken.”
When a deponent swears to an oath, he signs in the presence of the Commissioner for Oaths who endorses the document authenticating the signature of the deponent. Signatures signed outside the presence of the Commissioner for Oaths fall short of the requirement of the statute and such document purported to be sworn before Commissioner for Oaths is not legally acceptable in Court.
The law is that the deposition on oath must be

signed in the presence of the person authorized to administer oaths. In this case, the Appellant upon cross examination stated that he signed same in the office of his Counsel. This to my mind presupposes that the document was not signed before a Commissioner for Oaths. The Appellant would easily have said “I signed before the Commissioner for Oaths” if he did. He simply did not sign it in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths as required by law. This is not a defect in form as envisaged by Section 113 of the Evidence Act 2011. It is a fundamental and statutory error that cannot be waived. Therefore, the witness statements on oath of the Appellant dated 12th June, 2012 and 5th October, 2010 are incompetent and inadmissible, I hereby uphold the decision of the trial Court on this point and re-stating that they are hereby expunged having failed the statutory test of authenticity and admissibility.
I hereby uphold the decision of the trial Court where it held that the Appellant’s claim was bereft of evidence and therefore abandoned because the witness statements on oath of his sole witness was according to the trial judge, deposed to before the

Plaintiff/Appellant’s Counsel. This issue is resolved in favour of the Respondents.

In conclusion therefore and considering the finding of this Court on Issue Three and in agreement with the decision of the trial Court’s decision in its entirety, the Appellant’s claim is bereft of evidence and the Respondent having adduced sufficient evidence against the claim of the Appellant, it is the decision of this Court that the appeal lacks merit and it is therefore hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost.

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I was availed a draft copy of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Mohammed Baba Idris, JCA.

I am in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. I too, do dismiss the appeal and I abide by the order as to costs.

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, JCA and I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusion arrived at therein.

Appearances:

M, K. BIELONWU, ESQ., with him, Q. N. OWUTA, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

ABDULRAHMAN, ESQ. For Respondent(s)