ENTERPRISE BANK NIGERIA PLC & ORS v. CINDERELLA BAKERY AND AGRIC FOODS INDUSTRIES LIMITED (2014)

ENTERPRISE BANK NIGERIA PLC & ORS v. CINDERELLA BAKERY AND AGRIC FOODS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

(2014)LCN/7720(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 20th day of June, 2014

CA/K/377/2004

RATIO

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: LEGAL PROCESS; THE ESTABLISHED LAW WITH REGARD TO THE PROPER PERSON TO SIGN, AUTHOR OR AUTHENTICATE ANY LEGAL PROCESS AND THE FORM IN WHICH ALL PROCESSES ARE TO BE SIGNED
As I had variably expressed in similar cases before this Court, the established law with regard to the proper person to sign, author or authenticate any legal process as clarified by the Supreme Court is that it is only the parties themselves or Legal Practitioners acting on their behalf, who had been called to the Nigerian Bar pursuant to Sections 2, 7 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act that can sign or authenticate a Court process. A Law Firm is not a Legal Practitioner known to law. All processes are to be signed in the following form:
(a) The signature of Counsel, which may be in any form;
(b) The name of Counsel clearly written;
(c) The party Counsel represents;
(d) Name and address of Law Firm. See the cases of Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Part 1043 page 521; SLB Consortium Ltd. vs. N.N.P.C (2011) 9 NWLR Part 1252 page 317; F.B.N. Plc vs. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 444; Alawiye vs. Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 570 and Okarika vs. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR Part 1352 page 19. per. THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.

LEGAL PRACTITIONER ACT: WHO IS ENTITLED TO PRACTICE AS A BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR

Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, provides that “subject to the provision of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the role. Then, Section 7 of the same Act prescribes that “a person shall be entitled to have his name enrolled if, and only if, (a) he has been called to the Bar by the Benchers; and,
(b) he produces a Certificate of his Call to the Bar to the Registrar.
The above sections of the Legal Practitioners Act have been variously interpreted by the Supreme Court with the result being that any person who failed to comply with the stipulations in the Legal Practitioners Act, that is to say, who was not called to the Bar, and did not have his name enrolled, is not qualified or cannot be entitled to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor in any of the Courts in Nigeria.

JUSTICES

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. ENTERPRISE BANK NIG. PLC.
2. MR. A. FADOLA
3. MR. MADU T. MALGWI
4. S. A. ADAMU
(Operating under the names and Style of S. A. Adamu & Sons Licensed auctioneers) Appellant(s)

AND

CINDERELLA BAKERY AND AGRIC FOODS INDUSTRIES LIMITED Respondent(s)

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): There was a banker-customer relationship between the 1st Appellant and the Respondent. The Respondent maintained a current account No.0101004709 with the 1st Appellant. In June 1986, the 1st Appellant granted Credit facility to the Respondent to the tune of N50,000.00 which was secured by the Respondent charging its floating assets by way of a floating Debenture to the 1st Appellant. The floating Debenture created the rights and obligations of the parties in respect of the facilities granted to the Respondent by the 1st Appellant. The assets charged and/or mortgaged were insured. In or about April, 1996, the Respondent discovered that its account was wrongly debited up to the tune of N42,677.60 which were all averred at paragraph 16 of the Amended Statement of Claim. The 1st Appellant was notified of all the wrong debits. It was alleged that instead of the 1st Appellant either servicing all wrong interest debits or re-crediting the Plaintiff’s account and paying the insurance claims of the Respondents, the 1st Appellant wrote and demanded the plaintiff to settle its overdrawn account which purportedly stood at N154,432.

The 1st Appellant followed it up with several acts of embarrassment and intimidation. To prevent further deterioration of the situation, the Respondent’s Managing Director, Mr. Adnan Akar issued a Savannah Bank Cheque No.2101002242 for the said sum of N154,432.22 in settlement of the Respondent’s indebtedness. The 1st Appellant, without proper reconciliation of plaintiff’s account, demanded for further settlement of the sum of N35,297.52 as contained in its letter dated 3/6/96. It was stated that due to the wrongful debiting of the Respondent’s account to the tune of N42,677.60, and the insurance claim which has been approved but not yet paid, the exact sum of the Respondent’s indebtedness to the 1st Appellant was unascertainable at the time the 1st Appellant demanded for payment of the sum N154,432.22, and, the subsequent trespass of the Appellants to the Respondent’s premises and properties. It was stated that there was no justification for the unlawful entry into the Respondents premises situate at No. C7 Beirut Road, Kano and the seizure and carting away of the Respondent’s assets, stock in trade, properties, e.t.c., on 30/5/96. It was stated that the wrongful and unlawful acts subjected the Respondent, who runs a restaurant and a supermarket in its business, to great embarrassment, irreparable damage to its goodwill. It lost considerable number of customers as a result. It was further averred that the Respondent was never served with any Notice of Public Auction of its properties nor did it permit the Appellants in writing to enter its premise. The acts were carried out maliciously and out of spite towards the Plaintiff and with the intention of humiliating the Respondent and injuring its reputation and goodwill. It was as a result of these averments that the Respondent claimed against the Appellants as follows:
“1. The sum of N5,000,000.00 damages for trespass to the Plaintiff premises and properties.
2. The sum of N5,000,000.00 as damages for the unlawful, deliberate and malicious impounding of the goods and properties of the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s premises at Beirut Road, Kano by use of force and intimidation by armed policemen and uncountable number of labourers thus subjecting the Plaintiff to ridicule and embarrassment in the eyes of the public and/or its customers.
3. An order compelling the 1st Defendants to settle the sum of N42,677.60 being the amount wrongly debited from the Plaintiffs account by the 1st Defendants which the Central Bank of Nigeria confirmed were unauthorized charges and for which the 1st Defendants have refused to comply.
4. An order compelling the 1st Defendants to pay into the Plaintiffs account the sums of money settled by the Insurance Company which the 1st Defendants informed the Plaintiff that same had been settled in respect of the burglary claim under Burglary Insurance Scheme Policy No.F002/06/0492/NE/LA.
5. A declaration that the Plaintiffs is not owing the sum of N35,297.52 claimed by the 1st Defendants as the auctioneers’ fees i.e. the 4th Defendant or any sum at all.”

Evidence was called by the parties and in delivering its judgment, the lower Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent in the following terms:
“1. The defendants shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of N200,000.00k (Two Hundred thousand naira) as damages for forceful entry into the Plaintiffs premises.
2. The defendants shall pay the Plaintiff as damages the sum of N300,000.00k (Three hundred thousand naira) for the unlawful deliberate and malicious upending of the Plaintiff goods and properties subjecting the Plaintiff to ridicule and embarrassment in the eyes of the public and its customers.
3. The defendants shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of N42,677.60k being the unauthorized management and service charges debited on the Plaintiff statements of account by the 1st defendants.
4. The defendants are not entitled to the sum of N35,297.52k against the Plaintiff as auctioneers fee.”

An appeal was lodged against the said decision by a Notice of Appeal dated 19/12/2003. Although the judgment itself seemed to have been delivered on 15/12/03, the Notice of Appeal gave the impression that the judgment was delivered on 18/12/03. The parties filed their respective Briefs and, in the Amended Appellant’s Brief of Argument prepared and adopted before this Court by Kayode Olatunji Esq; three issues were raised. They are:
“(1) Whether or not the lower Court was not in error in entering judgment against the 2nd – 4th Defendants who were servants and agents of a Disclosed Principal, the 1st Defendant.
(2) Whether or not the Lower Court was not in error in awarding two heads of Damages one for “unlawful deliberate and malicious impounding of Plaintiffs goods and Trespass or damages at all against the Appellants in the circumstances of this case and when same was not established and Appellants not liable to same.
(3) Whether or not in the circumstances of this case the Plaintiff proved its declaratory relief and order against the Appellants for alleged unauthorized charges of N42,677,60 as well as non-liability to pay N35,297.52 Recovery Expenses and interest contracted to under Exh. A, the Deed of Mortgage Debenture.”
The Respondent for its part formulated eight issues thus:
“1. Whether or not the plaintiff has by preponderance of evidence proved the following:
That the Appellants in the company of Policemen and labourers force its way to No.17, Beirut Road, Kano carried or alleged to carry away assets of the Plaintiff and by said act, did chose away the customers and staff of the Respondent.
2. That the Appellants and persons acting on their behalf/instructions were not legally justified to have taken away the Respondent’s assets.
3. That the service handling and management charges amounting to over N40,000.00 debited by the 1st Appellant were infact, illegal and ought to have been reversed as instructed by CBN as contained in Exhibit ‘B’.
4. Whether the Respondent is under any obligation to pay the sum of N35,297.52k being auctioneers fees expenses for the hiring of policemen and labourers.
5. Whether condition precedent for the exercise of any power by the Appellants has been met before the Appellant’s actions.
6. Whether this Honourable Court can interfere with the award of damages by the lower trial Court.
7. Whether the 1st Appellant was a disclosed principal of the other Appellants and whether or not reliefs exist against them jointly and severally.
8. Whether there is a valid and competent appeal before this Honourable Court.”
Under issue No.1, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Kayode Olatunji Esq., submitted that where the principal of an agent is known or disclosed, the property party to sue for anything done or omitted to be done by the agent is the principal. He relied on Leventis Tech. Ltd vs. Petrojessica Ent. Ltd (1992) 2 NWLR Part 224 page 459 at 468-469; Qua Steel Product Ltd vs. Bassey (1992) 5 NWLR Part 239 page 67 at 75-76 and Niger Progress Ltd vs. North East Line Corporation (1989) 3 NWLR Part 107 page 68 at 83-84.
Regarding issue No.2, it was stressed that the Respondent’s debt as at 30th September, 1995 was N176,392.55k and which it refused to pay. The Respondent was supplied with regular statements of account since inception containing all the entries, charges, interest charged and debit balance with clause that the Respondent should notify the Bank within 7 days of receipt, of any query or discrepancy in the account but the Respondent never raised any queries nor complained Exhibit E dated 26/10/95 written by the 1st Appellant to the Respondent showed that the Respondent’s indebtedness as at 30/9/95 stood at N176,392.55. It was also stated that by Exhibit A, the Respondent agreed that the 1st Appellant has power to take possession of the mortgaged properties as all Respondent’s assets machineries, stocks, etc were mortgaged to the Bank on 9/4/1996. The Respondent wrote to the 1st Appellant terminating the Banker-Customer relationship which exposed the charged assets to risk regarding immediate inspection and preservation and securing possession thereof. Then after 30th May, 1996 on the authority of the power conferred on the 1st Appellant under the Deed moved to inspect and pressure the mortgaged assets which clause 9 of the Deed of Debenture examples the Bank while entering into possessions of its assets from being liable for anything or any loss upon realization of the mortgaged assets.

It was contended that there is no head of tort or contract known in law as Damages for unlawful deliberate and malicious impounding of the goods and properties of the Plaintiffs and that the assets claimed to have been trespassed upon have been mortgaged to the 1st Appellant, who now have title to the goods and to sell same at any time there is default on the part of the Respondent. Counsel cited the cases of Bank of the North Ltd vs. Babatunde (2002) FWLR Part 119 page 1452 at 1474; Awojugbagbe Light Ind. Ltd vs. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR Part 390 page 379 at 410; Prince Adetono vs. Zenith Int Bank Plc (2012) All FWLR Part 611 page 1443 at 1456 paragraphs F-G; Karibo vs. Grend (1992) 3 NWLR Part 230 page 426 at 439-440; and Neke Ltd vs. ACB Ltd (2004) 1 SCNJ 193 at 219, and submitted that the Respondent’s claim against the 1st Appellant in the circumstances of the case is absurd and lacked locus standi.
A mortgagee like a landlord exercising his right to possess after the expiry of his tenant’s lease or his agent who entered and took possession of the mortgaged property in exercise of his right to possess after the expiry of his tenants’ lease or his agent who entered and took possession of the mortgaged properties in exercise of his right under the mortgage agreement, is not liable for damages for forcible entry, because the right to possess the property had become vested in the mortgagee and his agent, the receiver, and, the forcible entry was done in furtherance of their rights. It was further stressed that in that case, the admission of the Respondent that he was owing the 1st Appellant under the mortgaged agreement at the time the property was sold, the Appellants did not commit any act of trespass by entering the building. Learned Counsel for the Appellants then implored this Court to apply the aforementioned case strictly to the facts of this case, because, as at that time, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were indebted to the 1st Appellant on the loan and overdraft facilities obtained. He further submitted that the 1st Appellant is not in breach of Clause 4 of Exhibit A as both the Bank, its employees or others could be appointed by the Bank to take possession and protect the charged assets.
Learned Counsel contended that no findings of fact was made nor was there any basis for the award of damages by the trial Court. He submitted that the lower Court is duty bound to make necessary findings of fact and the Respondent did not prove any facts that would warrant award of the two heads of damages. The award of the said damages, too, amount to double compensation. He then urged that the award be set aside.
On issue No. 3, it was strongly submitted that an error was committed by the award of the sum of N42,677.60 to the Respondent and declaration that the 1st Appellant is not entitled to the payment of N35,292.82 as Recovery Fee/Auction Fee by the lower Court on the ground that the Appellant were in breach of clause 4 of the Mortgage Deed by not approving a Receiver /Manager. He referred to clause 12 of the Deed of Mortgage debts which relates to payment of all expenses, costs and charges incurred in recovering its debt or in relation to exercise of powers relating to the Mortgaged assets. Learned Counsel emphasized on that the claim of N42,677.60 tagged unauthorized management and service charges debited to the Respondent’s account were not proved by showing its existence on the statement of account. He referred to P.W.2′ s evidence at page 45 of the record on 30/1/95 and states in P.W.2 was unsure of his claim as he said that the total charges made in the statement of account is over N40,000.00. He ought to have strictly proved this item of damages since it is under the head of special damages. He further referred to Exhibit B dated 3/6/96, the purported Central Bank of Nigeria letter and argued that the Respondent had before that letter, paid part of its indebtedness or debt to the 1st Appellant after the visit to its premises on 30/6/96. He argued that exhibit B was not received by the Appellant and no investigation was carried by CBN to check if the charges were in order and within the contractual terms of the parties. The Respondent never challenged any entry in its statement of account since inception till June, 1996 and had severally confirmed all the entries in its account to be correct, therefore, the Respondent cannot be heard now to complain or claim that the charges are illegal, and which, illegality, it did not plead in its Statement of Claim. He cited Alhaji Aminu Ishola vs. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2005) All FWLR Part 256 page 1202 at 1213 – 1214, where the Supreme held that any allegation of illegality in a case must be pleaded so that the opposing party would not be taken by surprise, and, then urge this Court to set aside the award of special damages of N42,667.60 since it was not proved by the Respondent. He persuaded this Court to allow the appeal, and set aside the decision of the lower Court.
It is instructive to note that the Appellant raised six grounds of appeal but the Respondents formulated eight issues therefrom, meaning, they proliferated the issues.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent, Salisu Sule Esq., submitted in respect of issue No.1 propositioned by the Respondent that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at pages 22 – 23 of the record was not controverted or shaken on the fact that the Appellants in the company of policemen and labourers came to the Respondent’s Bakery, Supermarket and offices at No.17 Beirut Road, Kano and stared carrying away and damaging the Respondent’s assets. He cited the cases of Mainage vs. Gwamna (2004) All FWLR Part 222 pages 1617 at 1619 holding No. 1 and at 1621 holding No. 4; Yusuf vs. Obasanjo (2004) ALL FWLR Part 213 pages 1884 at 1901 holding No.12; Attorney Gen. Anambra State vs. Attorney Gen., of Federation (2005) ALL FWLR Part 268 pages 1557.
Learned Counsel argued issues 2, 3 and 4 together by referring to Exhibits A1 – A15-, paragraph 13 of the Amended Statement of Defence. Exhibit D, testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 which stated that the insurance policy was issued directly to the Bank. It was argued that by Exhibits G-1, G2, H1 and H2, the 1st Appellant has taken upon itself the duty to collect the claims of the Respondent.
On issue No. 5, it was argued that Exhibit A is a floating Debenture not fixed. He explained that a floating debenture is a floating charge over the assets of the Respondents which is floating with the property which it is intended to affect. He referred to Section 178 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act which allows the Respondent in its ordinary course of business, to sell, let, mortgage or otherwise deal with any of its asset’s. It was contended that the Appellants never pleaded that the floating debenture has crystallized or become fixed. The cases of Roxen vs. Sutah (1895) 2 CH. 118 at 124; Good Stock vs. Manile Ranking Co. (1897) AC 81; Saipem Spa vs. India (2001) FWLR Part 74 page 377; Union Bank of Nigeria Limited vs. Madan Hawa’u Salami (1988) 3 NWLR 543 at 544 & 547; Elesei Agbai & Ors vs. Okogbue (1991) 7 NWLR Part 204 page 391; Farmers Mart Limited vs. Milne (1915) A. C. page 106 at 115; Neke Ltd vs. A.C.B.; Ishola vs. Union Bank of Nig Ltd, were relied upon by Counsel.
Regarding issue No. 6 learned Counsel referred to the cases of Union Bank of Bank Ltd vs. Odusote Bookstores Ltd (1995) 12 SCNJ 175 at 202 & 203; Avon Crown Caps & Containers Nig. Ltd vs. Bamigboye (2004) ALL FWLR Part 210 page 1323 at 1324 and 1334 paragraphs D – E; Elf (Nig) Ltd vs. Sillo (1994) 6 NWLR Part 350 page 258 at 274; Ijebu Ode Local Govt. vs. Balogun & Co. Ltd. (1991) 1 NWLR Part 166 at 136, and contended that the conditions upon which the Court could interfere with the award of damages by the trial Court was not shown to exist, therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the same.
On issue No.7 whether the 1st Appellant was a disclosed principal of the other Appellants and whether or not the reliefs exist against them jointly and severally, it was submitted that the 2nd and 4th Appellants were joined because reliefs were alleged to exist against them in favour of the Respondent. He referred to Order 11 Rule 3 of the Kano State High Court Rules (1988), and submitted that there is nowhere in the proceedings of the lower Court where the Appellants who were represented by one Counsel, applied for one of them to be struck out of the suit if grounds exists for their names to be struck out or that relief against them did not exist and the Respondent led evidence to their wrongful acts leading to the lower Courts judgment. He argued that the cases of Qua Steel Product vs. Bassey; Niger Progress Ltd vs. North East Line Corporation; Leventis Tech. Ltd vs. PetroJessica Ent. Ltd., cited by the Appellants’ Counsel are not applicable to this appeal.
Turning to issue No.8, learned Counsel contended that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants dated 19th December 2003, is fundamentally defective and therefore there is no appeal before the Court.
Under Section 32 of the Court of Appeal Act 1976 there are two classes of persons who can be “Appellant” or who can institute an appeal. These classes are:
a. A person who desires to appeal from the decision of trial Court and,
b. A legal Practitioner representing that person.
Counsel hinged his arguments on the cases of New Nigeria Bank Plc vs. Denclag Ltd (2004) All FWLR Part 228 page 606 at 634; Ogbodu vs. Ishokave (1964) NMLR 234; and Thomas vs. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR 69, and submitted that the Notice and Grounds of Appeal was not signed by the Appellants. Kayode Olatunji & Co issued and signed the Notice of Appeal, therefore, it is not a person recognized by law to file an appeal as it is not a Legal Practitioner. He also invoked the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2, 3, 9(5) and 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002, and submitted that the Firm of Kayode Olatunji & Co is not on the roll of Legal Practitioners and therefore, not competent to file an appeal on behalf of any Appellant. He asserted that this appeal is incompetent.
I have carefully perused the issues raised by both parties in their respective Brief of Argument but must expeditiously tackle issue No. 8 which questioned the validity of the appeal itself. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants is both invalid and incompetent having been signed by the Law Firm of Kayode Olatunji & Co., and not a Legal Practitioner called to the Nigerian Bar in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975 as amended. It is clear that if the argument of Counsel is founded, then, it will knock off the foundation of this appeal.
As I had variably expressed in similar cases before this Court, the established law with regard to the proper person to sign, author or authenticate any legal process as clarified by the Supreme Court is that it is only the parties themselves or Legal Practitioners acting on their behalf, who had been called to the Nigerian Bar pursuant to Sections 2, 7 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act that can sign or authenticate a Court process. A Law Firm is not a Legal Practitioner known to law. All processes are to be signed in the following form:
(a) The signature of Counsel, which may be in any form;
(b) The name of Counsel clearly written;
(c) The party Counsel represents;
(d) Name and address of Law Firm. See the cases of Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Part 1043 page 521; SLB Consortium Ltd. vs. N.N.P.C (2011) 9 NWLR Part 1252 page 317; F.B.N. Plc vs. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 444; Alawiye vs. Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 570 and Okarika vs. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR Part 1352 page 19.

In Okarika vs. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR Part 1352 page 19 at page 24, I. T. Muhammad, J.S.C., expressed that law firm is incapable of signing the process. It is incapable of pursuing the appeal to its logical conclusion, as it lacks these human qualities. Once an initiating process, be it Writ of Summons or Notice of Appeal is not signed or authenticated either by the litigating party or the Legal Practitioner on his behalf, then the process is invalid and the jurisdiction of the Court ousted.
Also, in Alawiye vs. Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 page 570 at 581 to 584, Chukwuma-Eneh, J.S.C reiterated the point that a Law Firm is not a legal person and so cannot under the Legal Practitioners Act sign and issue legal processes being a non-cognizable person under the Act. A legal process signed and issued by a law firm is incompetent and is liable to be set aside. Processes must be signed and issued by a person as enrolled to practice law in Nigeria under the Legal Practitioners Act. Anything short of signing and authenticating legal processes in that manner is unacceptable.
In the case of F.B.N. Plc vs. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR part 1348 page 444 at 456 and 461, Fabiyi, J.S.C. expressed that the convenience of Counsel should have no pre-eminence over the dictate of law. The law as enacted should be followed.
There is complete breach of the provisions of Sections 2(1), 4(1) and 7 of the Legal Practitioners’ Act by the Respondents.
It is trite that when a law is breached or disobeyed, an action carried out as a result of the breach or contrary to the dictates of the law, is illegal, null and void, therefore, any Court process not signed or authored by the person authorized by Law to so do, is fundamentally defective and incompetent. It is in this regard that I resolve issue No. 8, a glaring issue of law, in favour of the Respondent.
I equally observed that both the Writ of Summons and the Amended Statement of Claim filed on behalf of the Respondents at the lower Court which I am entitled to take judicial notice of in view of the Evidence Act, were authored and authenticated by Ibrahim M. Boyi & Co., which have rendered the entire proceedings conducted thereon invalid and incompetent. The Appellants’ Amended Statement of Defence was also signed on behalf of the Law Firm of Kayode Olatunji & Co., a non-Legal Practitioner. The entire proceedings are fundamentally defective and cannot be cured by any amendment.
In view of all these, and, the authorities hereinbefore mentioned, I hereby strike out the Notice of Appeal, the Writ of Summons and pleadings filed by the parties at the lower Court for being incompetent.
I make no order as to costs.

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I concur in the judgment read by my learned brother, Orji – Abadua, J.C.A., with nothing extra to add.

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: I read before now the lead judgment just read by my learned brother ORJI-ABADUA JCA., I am in complete agreement, I therefore adopt the judgment as mine in this appeal.

Appearances

Kayode Olatunji Esq; with Abdulraheen Esq.For Appellant

AND

S. A. Magashi Esq; with Salisu Sule Esq.For Respondent