ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS REGISTRATION COUNCIL OF NIGERIA v. LAGOS STATE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
(2012)LCN/5635(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 4th day of December, 2012
CA/L/637/2010
RATIO
APPEAL: ESSENCE OF BRIEFS
The Supreme Court in the case of:- Western Steel Works Ltd. & anor v. Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria & anor (1987) 2 SC 11 at 45. (Also reported in (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 284) at 304) state as follows:
“I do not think it is possible for an Appellant to introduce in his Brief issues not covered by any ground of appeal. The idea of a Brief is to develop and amplify arguments on points and issues covered by the grounds of appeal. For ultimately it is only on those grounds and them alone that the appeal will have to be allowed or dismissed. An issue taken up in a Brief but which was not made a ground of appeal ought to be ignored by an appellate court.”
See also:-Oba Jacob Oyeyipo & anor. v. Chief J. O. Oyinloye (1987) 2 S.C. 148 at 1999. Also reported in (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.356) 383.
Briefs are meant to assist in the administration of justice by making the work of both counsel and court simpler. Once the matter has got to the oral hearing stage, it is to promote justice. The Supreme Court again in case of Engineering Enterprises of Niger Contractor Co. of Nigeria v. The Attorney General of Kaduna State (1987) 5 SC. at 51 stated as follows:-
“The lawyer confronted with the task of preparing a Brief would do well to remember what may be called the A. B. C. of all legal writing, namely Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity.” PER S. D. BAGE. J.C.A.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: DOCTRINE OF COVERING THE FIELD
What then is doctrine of “covering the field?” The Locus Classicus on this subject is the famous Supreme Court’s decision in A.G. Ogun State V. A.G. Federation [consolidated] (1982)13 N.S.C.C. 1 at 28; (1982) 1- 2 S.C. 13 at 39 – 40 but more particularly at 95- 96, wherein the Supreme Court stated:-
“where a federal set-up, both the federal and the state legislature each being empowered by the constitution so to do, legislate on the same subject then (1) if it appears from the provisions of the federal law on the subject that the Federal legislature intends to cover the entire field of the subject matter and thus provide what the law on the subject should be for the entire federation then the state law on the subject is inconsistent with the federal law and the latter must prevail and the state law on the subject is invalid.”
The Supreme Court was again very specific on page 39 – 40 of the same case that:-
“If no general intention to cover the entire field on the subject can be gathered from the Federal law, then the mere concurrence of the two laws (i.e. the federal and state laws) on the subject is not eo ipso an inconsistency although the detailed rules in the provision of both laws may lead to different results on the same facts, and in the words of Colin Howard with which I respectfully agree unless the two rules actually contradict one another it is a question of legislative intention…. To be inferred from the legislative con whether the laws in question complement one another or are inconsistent.”
In the same report at page 40, the Supreme Court added
“Thus, in Ex Parte Mclean (1930) 43 C.L.R. 472 at page 483, Dixon J. when dealing with the exercise of concurrent legislative power, observed rightly as follows… when the Parliament of the Common Wealth and the Parliament of a state each legislate upon the same subject and prescribe what rule of conduct shall be, they make laws which are inconsistent, notwithstanding that the rule of conduct is identical which each prescribed, and section 109 applies. That this so is settled at least when the sanctions they impose are diverse (Hume v. Palmer (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441). But the reason is that by preserving the rule to be observed the Federal statute shows an intention to cover the subject matter and provides what the law upon it shall be. If it appeared that the federal law as intended to be supplementary to or cumulative upon state law then no inconsistency would be exhibited in imposing the same duties or in inflicting different penalties. The inconsistency does not lie in the mere co-existence of two laws which are susceptible of simultaneous obedience. It depends upon the intention of the paramount legislature to express by its enactment, completely, exhaustively, or exclusively what shall be the law governing the particular conduct or matter to which its attention is directed when a federal statute discloses such an intention, it is inconsistent with it for the law of a state to govern the same conduct or matter. The above observation was referred to by the Privy Council with approval in O’ Sullivan v. Naolunga meat Ltd. (1957) A. C. 1 at 24.”
Thus it is very clear now, the law on this subject as established by the decision of the Supreme Court is that, the inconsistency does not lie in the mere existence of two laws, but upon the intention of the paramount legislature to express by its enactment completely, exhaustively and exclusively what shall be the law. PER S. D. BAGE. J.C.A.
COURT: FUNCTION OF A COURT IN RELATION TO INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
The function of a Court of law is to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in the clear tenor of the words contained in it. A Court of law has no jurisdiction to import into the Constitution or impute into the Constitution words that are not used therein, which will not bring out the intention of the makers of the Constitution, and as Tobi, JSC pointed out in Obusez v. Obusez (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 430 SC – “It is the duty of the Court to interpret the Constitution in line with the words used and the intention of the makers of the Constitution”. Section 4(5) of the Constitution gives supremacy to Federal Laws. The said Section provides that –
“If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail and that other law, shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”. PER AMINA A. AUGIE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS REGISTRATION COUNCIL OF NIGERIA Appellant(s)
AND
1. LAGOS STATE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
2. JIMSIF LIMITED
3. KENT & KELLY LIMITED
4. BIOD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.
5. OLUWASEUN INVESTMENT NIG. LTD. Respondent(s)
S. D. BAGE. J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling of Achibong J. of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division delivered on the 22nd of March, 2010.
The Background facts of the case is as follows:-
The Appellant is a body established pursuant to the Environmental Health Officers (Registration, etc) Act No. 11 of 2002; an Act of the National Assembly of Nigeria. The Appellant was purportedly established under the said Act with powers to register, regulate and standardize the practice of the profession of Environmental Health Officers and Environmental Health Service Providers in Nigeria.
The 1st Respondent is an Authority established pursuant to the Lagos Waste Management Authority Law No. 5 of 2007, a law of the Lagos State House of Assembly with the following functions among others.
(a) “clean street, remove, collect and dispose of domestic, commercial and industrial waste.”
(b) “remove and dispose of abandoned and scrapped vehicles”
(e) “approve and monitor all waste disposal systems in the state.”
(g) “issue, renew and revoke license of private waste collectors.”
The Respondent in exercise of its power pursuant to the Enabling Law engaged the 2nd – 5th Respondents as waste collectors.
By an Originating Summons dated 8th June, 2009 and filed on 7th July, 2009 the Appellant sought for the determination of the following questions at the trial court, to wit.
1. Whether by the provisions of the Environmental Health Officers (Registration, etc) Act No. 11 of 2002, the plaintiff has the sole duty and responsibility of registering and licensing Environmental Health Service Providers and to regulate and standardize the practice of the profession in Nigeria.
2. Whether the appointment and grant of license to the 2nd – 5th Defendants and others practicing as Environmental Health Service Providers in Lagos State by the 1st Defendant without prior registration and license of the 2nd – 5th Defendants and others with the plaintiff is not a breach of the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Environmental Health Officers (Registration, etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 made there under.
3. Whether by the combined effect of the Environmental Health Officers (Regulation etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environment Health Practice Regulations 2007, the Plaintiff is obliged to require the 1st Defendant to ensure that the 2nd – 5th Defendants and others are duly licensed, and registered in the register of members kept with the plaintiff as persons and companies which are qualified to engaged in the business of commercial waste collection and disposal in Lagos State.
4. Whether S.9(1) of the Lagos State Waste Management Authority Law No. 5 Laws of Lagos State 2007 is not inconsistent with S.16(1) of the Environmental Health officers Registration etc) Act No.11 of 2002 and Ss.15, 16(1) & 19(1) & (2) of the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007.
In the said originating summons, the Appellant claimed the following Reliefs against the respondents.
1. A declaration that the plaintiff by virtue of the Environmental Health Officers (Registration etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 made there under has the duty and responsibility to register and license Environmental Health Service Providers before commencing the business of waste collection and disposal in any part of Nigeria including Lagos State.
2. A declaration that the grant of license to the 2nd – 5th Defendants to Practice as Environmental Health service providers in Lagos state without the 2nd – 5th Defendants prior registration with the grant of license by the plaintiff is inconsistent with the provisions of the Environmental Health Officers (Registration etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations of 2007 made there under and thereby void.
3. A declaration that the 2nd – 5th Defendants and others practicing, as Environmental Health Service Providers in Lagos State are under a duty to register with and be granted license by the plaintiff before they can engage in the business of commercial waste collection and disposal in compliance with the Provisions of Environmental Health Officers (Regulations etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environmental Health Practice regulations, 2007 made there under.
4. A declaration that S.9(7) of Lagos State Waste Management Authority Law No. 5 of the Laws of Lagos State 2007 is inconsistent with S.16(1) of the Environmental Health Officers (Registration etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 and Ss. 16(1) and 19(1) & (2) of the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 made there under to the extent that it does not require prior registration with and grant of license by the plaintiff to the 2nd – 5th Defendants and others before engaging in the business of commercial waste collection and disposal in Lagos State.
5. A declaration that the license already granted the 2nd – 5th Defendants and the 1st Defendant to engage in the business of commercial waste collection and disposal in Lagos State without prior registration with the plaintiff is null and void and of no effect.
6. An order of this Honorable court compelling the 2nd – 5th Defendants and other persons or companies practicing as Environmental Health Service Providers in Lagos state to register and be licensed by the plaintiff forthwith.
7. An order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendants either by herself or though her agent or privies from engaging and licensed persons or companies who are not registered and licensed by the plaintiff to practice the business of commercial waste collection and disposal in Lagos State.
The said originating summons was supported with a 20 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Mr. Andy Ukah. There were 9 Exhibits attached to the affidavit in support of the Summons marked exhibits A, B, C, D, F, H, I.
The Respondents jointly filed on 23rd November, 2009 a Defence and counter-claim dated 10th day of November, 2009. The Defence and counter claim were supported with an affidavit of a 9 paragraphs deposed to by one Ganiyu Olanrewaju Rufai. In the Respondents’ counter claim, the Respondents posited two (2) questions for determination and sought 6 Reliefs. There was also a counter – Affidavit of 6 paragraphs deposed to on 23rd November, 2009 by one Adepitan Adegboyega on behalf of the respondents.
Parties filed and exchanged written address in support of their respective claims. The learned trial judge, Archibong J. in a well considered ruling delivered on the 22nd day of March, 2010 answered all the questions (issues) posed by the Appellant in the originating summons in the negative and denied the Appellant all the reliefs sought in the trial court.
Being dissatisfied with the said Ruling of the Honorable Justice Archibong J. the Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal dated 19th May, 2010 on 21st May, 2010.
By a motion on Notice dated 7th July, 2010 and filed on 12th July, 2010, this Honorable court granted the Appellant leave to amend the Original Notice of Appeal dated 19th May, 2010.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION RAISED
The Appellant in this Appeal raised the following 2 issues for determination by this court in its brief prepared by Joseph Ochu, Esq, and Emma N. Ukaegbu Esq.
(1) Whether the powers of the Appellant exercisable under the provisions of the Environmental Health officers (Registration) Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environmental Health practice Regulations 2007 to license companies engaged in the business of waste collection and disposal is inconsistent with the powers of the 7th respondent under section 9(1) of the Lagos waste Management Authority Law No. 5 of 2007 to exercise the same function. If the answer is in the affirmative, whether section 9(1) of the Lagos State Law No. 5 of 2007 should not be declared null and void (GROUND 2, 3, 4, and 5).
(2) Whether the Appellant was not denied fair hearing by failure of the trial judge to give adequate considerations to all the issues raised by the Appellant before answering all the Appellants issues in the Negative and refused all the Appellants reliefs (GROUND 1).
The Respondents on the other hand, contend in their own brief prepared by Oduyebo Olajide Jacobs Esq. that, the issues for determination are as follows:-
(a) Whether by virtue of Section 1 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the Environmental Health Officers (Regulation, etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 made there under is not void to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of section 7(1) (CFRN) and section 1 item (h) Forth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
(b) Whether the whole of chapters 3 and 4 of the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 made pursuant to the Environmental Health Officers (Registration etc) Act. No. 11 of 2002 is not void to the extent of its inconsistency in relation with S.7(1) and S.1(h) Fourth schedule to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
For the purposes of this argument, the issues raised by the Appellant shall be taken together with the issues herein.
The Respondents contends that, the two issues raised by the Appellants are not the real issues in this matter, but that of the Respondents. This controversy, squares up to what brief writing is all about. The Supreme Court in the case of:- Western Steel Works Ltd. & anor v. Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria & anor (1987) 2 SC 11 at 45. (Also reported in (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 284) at 304) state as follows:
“I do not think it is possible for an Appellant to introduce in his Brief issues not covered by any ground of appeal. The idea of a Brief is to develop and amplify arguments on points and issues covered by the grounds of appeal. For ultimately it is only on those grounds and them alone that the appeal will have to be allowed or dismissed. An issue taken up in a Brief but which was not made a ground of appeal ought to be ignored by an appellate court.”
See also:-Oba Jacob Oyeyipo & anor. v. Chief J. O. Oyinloye (1987) 2 S.C. 148 at 1999. Also reported in (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.356) 383.
Briefs are meant to assist in the administration of justice by making the work of both counsel and court simpler. Once the matter has got to the oral hearing stage, it is to promote justice. The Supreme Court again in case of Engineering Enterprises of Niger Contractor Co. of Nigeria v. The Attorney General of Kaduna State (1987) 5 SC. at 51 stated as follows:-
“The lawyer confronted with the task of preparing a Brief would do well to remember what may be called the A. B. C. of all legal writing, namely Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity.”
It thus becomes apposite to reproduce the Amended Notice of Appeal to determine whether the Appellants issues have been properly married to the grounds or not filed 29/11/10.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
APPEAL NO.: CA/L/637/2010
SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/698/2009
BETWEEN:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS -APPELLANT
REGISTRATION COUNCIL OF NIGERIA
AND
1. LAGOS STATE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
2. JIMSIF LIMITED
3. KENT & KELLY LIMITED -RESPONDENTS
4. BIOD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.
5. OLUWASEUN INVESTMENT NIG. LTD.
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
7. TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High court of Nigeria, Lagos Division contained in the Ruling of Hon. Justice C. E. Archbong delivered on Monday the 22nd day of March, 2010 DOTH HEREBY appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4. AND the Appellant further states that the names and addresses of the persons directly affected by the Appeal are those set out in paragraph 5.
2. PART OF DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT COMPAINED OF:
The whole decision contained in the Ruling of 22nd March 2010.
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
(1) ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he answered all the issues posed in the Originating Summons of the Appellant in the negative and denied the Appellant all the reliefs sought without giving adequate, and proper considerations to all the issues for determination and the reliefs claimed before arriving at his answer and judgment and thereby denied the Appellant’s right to fair hearing. A decision which has occasioned miscarriage of justice.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
(i) The learned trial judge as court of first instance has a duty to give adequate and proper considerations to all the issues raised by the Appellant in this suit.
(ii) Failure on the part of the judge to consider all the issues raised by the Appellant tantamount to denial of fair hearing.
(2) ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the Environmental Health officers (Registration) Act No. 11 of 2002 and National Environmental Health Practice Regulations, 2007 are clear cases of legislative and regulatory over-reach in the light of the details of the fourth schedule to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 when he concluded thus:
“The Federal Government can indeed prescribe standards for just about anything. It cannot however licence state and local functionaries in the provision of any services of which they are seised exclusively by the provisions of the Constitution.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(i) Item 1 (h) of the 4th schedule to the 1999 constitution which gave the Local Government Council power for the provision and maintenance of public conveniences, sewage and refuse disposal do not authorize the state Government or Local Government council to issue licence to any company wishing to engage in the business of commercial waste collection or disposal.
(ii) It is the duty of the Environmental Health Officers Registration Council of Nigeria to licence any company wishing to engage in the business of commercial waste collection or disposal.
(iii) Licensing of commercial waste collection and disposal companies by the Appellant does not amount to a take of the function of the Local Government Council on refuse disposal.
(iv) The 2nd – 5th Respondents are neither State nor Local Government functionaries, but independent contractors engaged by the 7th Respondent for commercial waste collection and disposal in Lagos State.
(v) Section 9 of the Lagos State Waste Management Law is inconsistent with Section 16(1) of the Environmental Health Officers Registration Act, 2002 and Sections 15 and 16(1) of the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 and therefore void to the extent of the inconsistency.
(3) ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held:
”The State and Local Authorities can indeed set standards and regulate the practice and/or operation of the professionals, business and persons in activities of which it exclusively seized by virtue of constitutional provisions. To the extent any federal enactment or regulation seeks to constrain that political space duly occupied by State and Local Authorities it is invalid, null, void and of no effect of efficacy.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
(i) The National Assembly has the competence to enact legislation to regulate professional bodies nay the Environmental Health officers Registration Council of Nigeria.
(ii) The registration and licensing of Environmental Health Service Providers (EHSP) by the plaintiff/Appellant does not deprive the Local Government Council from exercising its power of waste management and refuse disposal under item 1(h) of the 4th Schedule to the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
(4) ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held thus:
“Whether uses the Environmental Health Officers Registration Council of Nigeria is to be put, to it does not validly include the licensing and control of waste Management operations in Lagos State or any other state of the Federation. I so rule and deny the plaintiff all the reliefs it seeks.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(i) The function of the Local Government Council provide and maintain public conveniences, sewage and refuse disposal under the 1999 Constitution does empower the Lagos State House of Assembly to enact legislation to register and licence Environmental Services Providers (EHPS).
(ii) By virtue of the Environmental Health Officers Registration Council of Nigeria established by Act No. 11 of 2002 and the National Environmental Health Practice Regulation, 2007, the plaintiff/appellant has the responsibility of granting licence to any person or company wishing to engage in commercial collection of waste in any State in Nigeria.
(5) ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when held as follows:
“I determine that all the issues posed in this Originating Summons should be answered in the negative. The doctrine of covering field does not apply in area within which state and Local Authorities have exclusive competence, and the best practice even where there is concurrent competence by Federal and State Legislatures, in a country of this size and diversity, best practice is harmonization and sensitivity to local needs.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(i) The doctrine of covering the field is applicable where there are identical legislations on the same subject matter validly and distinctively passed by National Assembly and State House of Assembly, it will be more appropriate to invalidate the identical law passed by the State House of Assembly on the ground that the law passed by the National Assembly has covered the field of the subject matter.
(ii) The 1999 constitution did not provide for harmonization of legislations passed by two independent legislative bodies.
Having examined the five (5) grounds contained in the Appellants Amended Notice of Appeal filed on the 29/11/10 copiously, reproduced above, this court is satisfied that the two (2) issues distilled by the Appellant have captured the real question surrounding this appeal, that being the case, I tend to be guided by the issues as formulated by the Appellant.
ISSUE ONE (1)
Whether the power of the Appellant exercisable under the provisions of the Environmental Health officers (Registration) Act No. 11 of 2002 and National Environmental Health Practice Regulation, 2007 to license companies engaged in the business of waste collection or disposal is inconsistent with the powers of the 1st Respondent under section 9 (1) of the Lagos Waste Management Authority Law No. 5 of 2007 to exercise the same function. If the answer is in the affirmative whether section 9(1) of the Lagos State Law No. 5 of 2007 should not be declared null and void (Ground 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Learned Counsel submitted that the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 (herein after referred to as “the Regulation of 2007”) is an Act of the National Assembly. The Act was made pursuant to Act No. 11 of 2002. Sections 15, 16(1) 19(1) and (2) of the regulations of 2007 are relevant for the determination of this appeal.
Learned counsel further submitted that the National Assembly by virtue of items 49, 60(a) 67, and 68 respectively are in the Exclusive Legislative List, and section 20 of the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly is competent to enact an Act to designate, regulate and standardize the practice of the profession of Environmental Health officers and Environmental Health service Providers in Nigeria. The No.11 of 2002 was validly and competently enacted. The Regulation of 2007 is a subsidiary legislation and has the force of Law as it is deemed to have been made by the same Legislative Authority which made the Law. See Adene v. Dantunbu (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt.328) 509 at 532 para E.
Learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd – 5th Respondents by the nature of the services they were engaged to render to Lagos state by the 1st Respondent are Environmental Health Service Providers and waste collectors. The 2nd – 5th Respondents admitted in paragraph 4 of their Counter Affidavit that they were appointed as refuse/waste collectors in various Local Governments of Lagos State. See page 119 of the Record of Appeal, also Exhibits G & H on pages 86 – 92 and 93 of the record respectively. By virtue of sections 15, 16(1), 9(1) and (2) of the Regulation of 2007 the 2nd – 5th Respondents are required to be registered and licenced by the Appellant before they can be engaged as Service Providers and Waste Collectors.
Learned Counsel submitted that even if the Lagos State House of Assembly has power to legislate on issue of licences to waste collectors, which is not conceded, the mere fact that there is a federal statute which discloses intention to completely and exhaustively cover the same subject, it will be inconsistent for the state law to govern the same subject matter and the state law will be invalidated because the Federal Law had covered the whole field of the particular subject matter. This is what is described as the doctrine of “covering the field” which has been applied in many cases in Nigeria. See:- Attorney General Ogun State v. Attorney General Federation & Ors (1982) 2 FNR 4 at 14 – 15; (1982) 3 NCLR 166 at 179.
In reply learned counsel to the Respondents submitted that, the purposes of this argument, we rely on all processes filed by the Respondents at the trial court as well the Ruling of Honorable Justice Archibong J. dated 22nd day of March 2010.
By the doctrines of federalism which Nigeria has adopted by Virtue of section 2(2) of the 1999 constitution the autonomy of each government which presupposes existence and its independence from control of the other governments including the federal government is essential to arrangement. Therefore, each government exist not as an appendage of another government but an autonomous entity in the sense of being able to exercise its own will in the conducts of its affairs, free from being able to exercise its own will in the conducts of its affairs, free from direction by another government. see:- Attorney General Lagos State v. Attorney General Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (pt.833) 1 at 56.
Learned Counsel further submitted that a careful perusal of the Act and Regulations referred to by the Appellant in its issue 1 will reveal that the Act and Regulations made there under are clearly inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution under Ssection 7(1) and Section 1(h) Fourth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. The issue of waste/refuse is clearly not under the exclusive nor concurrent legislative competence of the National Assembly. Refuse/Waste is under the residual list on the Fourth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, hence the National Assembly is precluded from legislating on such subject. It is a matter within the exclusive legislative competence of the House of Assembly of the State, hence the Lagos State House of Assembly enacted the Law No. 5 of the Lagos Waste Management Authority Law pursuant to the constitutional provisions.
On the part of the court the submissions of counsel is carefully examined. The real issue in this appeal is within a narrow margin. That is just, whether the Act, and Regulations of the Appellant (Environmental Health Officers Registration Council of Nigeria) made by the National Assembly has covered the whole field on this particular subject matter, what is described as the doctrine of “covering the field”. The Appellant maintained it did, and that the Lagos State House of Assembly had lacked the legislative competence to make laws pertaining the same subject, the same law already made by the National Assembly.
The Respondents said No, the power of the Lagos State House of Assembly to make Laws on the subject, is derivable from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 particularly the Fourth Schedule thereto.
What then is doctrine of “covering the field?” The Locus Classicus on this subject is the famous Supreme Court’s decision in A.G. Ogun State V. A.G. Federation [consolidated] (1982)13 N.S.C.C. 1 at 28; (1982) 1- 2 S.C. 13 at 39 – 40 but more particularly at 95- 96, wherein the Supreme Court stated:-
“where a federal set-up, both the federal and the state legislature each being empowered by the constitution so to do, legislate on the same subject then (1) if it appears from the provisions of the federal law on the subject that the Federal legislature intends to cover the entire field of the subject matter and thus provide what the law on the subject should be for the entire federation then the state law on the subject is inconsistent with the federal law and the latter must prevail and the state law on the subject is invalid.”
The Supreme Court was again very specific on page 39 – 40 of the same case that:-
“If no general intention to cover the entire field on the subject can be gathered from the Federal law, then the mere concurrence of the two laws (i.e. the federal and state laws) on the subject is not eo ipso an inconsistency although the detailed rules in the provision of both laws may lead to different results on the same facts, and in the words of Colin Howard with which I respectfully agree unless the two rules actually contradict one another it is a question of legislative intention…. To be inferred from the legislative con whether the laws in question complement one another or are inconsistent.”
In the same report at page 40, the Supreme Court added
“Thus, in Ex Parte Mclean (1930) 43 C.L.R. 472 at page 483, Dixon J. when dealing with the exercise of concurrent legislative power, observed rightly as follows… when the Parliament of the Common Wealth and the Parliament of a state each legislate upon the same subject and prescribe what rule of conduct shall be, they make laws which are inconsistent, notwithstanding that the rule of conduct is identical which each prescribed, and section 109 applies. That this so is settled at least when the sanctions they impose are diverse (Hume v. Palmer (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441). But the reason is that by preserving the rule to be observed the Federal statute shows an intention to cover the subject matter and provides what the law upon it shall be. If it appeared that the federal law as intended to be supplementary to or cumulative upon state law then no inconsistency would be exhibited in imposing the same duties or in inflicting different penalties. The inconsistency does not lie in the mere co-existence of two laws which are susceptible of simultaneous obedience. It depends upon the intention of the paramount legislature to express by its enactment, completely, exhaustively, or exclusively what shall be the law governing the particular conduct or matter to which its attention is directed when a federal statute discloses such an intention, it is inconsistent with it for the law of a state to govern the same conduct or matter. The above observation was referred to by the Privy Council with approval in O’ Sullivan v. Naolunga meat Ltd. (1957) A. C. 1 at 24.”
Thus it is very clear now, the law on this subject as established by the decision of the Supreme Court is that, the inconsistency does not lie in the mere existence of two laws, but upon the intention of the paramount legislature to express by its enactment completely, exhaustively and exclusively what shall be the law. The main crux of the dispute between the two parties lies in the action of the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent is an Authority established by Lagos Waste Management Authority No. 5 of 2007, a Law of the Lagos State House of Assembly with the following functions amongst others
a)” clean street, remove, collect and dispose of domestic, commercial and industrial waste.
(g) Issue, renew and revoke licence of private waste collectors.
The grouse of the Appellant is not, for their submission before the court, that the Lagos State House of Assembly lacked the constitutional authority to make law establishing the 1st Respondent (The Lagos State Waste Management Authority). Again the submission of the Appellant did not question all the functions of the 1st Respondent as established by the Lagos state House of Assembly law No. 5 of 2007. The real question by the Appellants relates only to item No. (g) of that law, which gives authority to the 1st Respondent to
“issue, renew and revoke licence of private waste collectors.”
The Appellants continued in the exercise of its power to the aforesaid Enabling law, the 1st Respondent licenced and engaged the 2nd – 5th Respondents who are a private limited liability companies are commercial waste collectors for Lagos State. The 2nd – 5th Respondent are not in the Register of the Appellant as those licenced under the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations, 2007 by the Appellant to engage and operate in the business of commercial waste collection and disposal. The Appellant’s complaint to the 1st Respondent to desist from licensing and appointing waste collection and disposal agents who are not registered and licenced by the Appellant fell on deaf ears. Being aggrieved by the actions of the 1st Respondent, the Appellant instituted the suit that culminated in this Appeal at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division.
The Court must hasten to state here and now, that the legislative power of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is vested in the National Assembly by virtue of section 4(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. In the exercise of that Legislative power, the National Assembly promulgated the Environmental Health Officers (Registration etc) Act No. 11 of 2002 herein after referred as Act No.11 of 2002).
The National Environmental Health Practice Regulation 2007 (herein after referred as “the Regulation of 2007,) was made pursuant to the Act No.11 of 2002 sections 15, 16(1), 19(1) and (2) of the regulations of 2007 are here under reproduced.
Section 15: “No person or company shall engage in the business of waste collection or disposal without a licence issued by the council.”
S.16(1) Any person or company wishing to engage in commercial collection of waste shall apply to the council for correct class of licence.”
S.19(1) “Every prospective company wishing to be licenced as a waste collector shall have at least a member of its management being a registered member of the profession.”
S.19(2) A principal officer of such a company shall be a person registered by the council in line with section 10 of the Environmental Health Officers (Registration etc) Act.”
Section 16(1) of the Act No. 11 of 2002 does not permit the appointment of any person not registered with the council into any public or private establishment, body or institution, if holding of such appointment involves the performance by him in Nigeria of any act pertaining to the profession for gain. The said section 16(1) of Act No. 11 of 2002 provides:-
“subject to the provision of this Act no person not being registered with this Act shall be entitled to hold any appointment in the public or private establishment body or institution, if holding of such appointment involves the performance by him in Nigeria of any act pertaining to the profession for gain.”
On the other the Lagos State House of Assembly derives its power from the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which deals with the function of a Local Government Council. Amongst those functions conferred on a Local Government council by the Constitution is, paragraph 1(h) of the Schedule thereto. The said paragraph provides:-
“provision and maintenance of public conveniences, sewage on refuse disposal.”
The Lagos State House of Assembly armed with that constitutional power to make Laws as it affects the functions of Local Council, promulgated the Lagos State Waste Management Authority Law No. 5 of 2007. Section 4(1) (a) (g) of that Law specifies amongst others the functions of the 1st Respondent, which includes:-
section 4(1)(b): “clean street remove, collect and dispose of domestic, commercial and industrial waste.”
Section (1) (g) Issue, renew and revoke licence of Private waste collectors,”
While section 9(1) of that law provides:-
‘No person shall establish or operate any waste collection business without a licence issued by the Authority.”
The crux of this appeal lies between the provisions of section 16(1) of Environmental Health (Registration etc) Act No 11 of 2002, made by the National Assembly, and the provisions of Section 4 (1) (g) of the Lagos State Management Authority Law No. 5 of 2007 made by the Lagos State House of Assembly. While Section 16(1) of the No.11 of 2002 provides subject to the provisions of this Act, no person not being registered in accordance with this Act shall be entitled to hold any appointment in the public or private establishment body or institution, if holding of such appointment involves the performance by him in Nigeria (underline mine) of any act pertaining to the profession for gain.
While the Lagos Laws No. 5 of 2007 provides no person shall establish or operate any waste collection business without licence issued by the Authority. Also the Authority shall issue renew and revoke of private Waste Collectors.
Also in line with section 16(1) of the Act of 2002, the National Environmental Health Practice Regulations 2007 provided under its section 15 thereto, that no person or company shall engage in the business of waste collection or disposal without a licence issued by the council. The Act of 2002, is that of the National Assembly, while the Lagos State Law of 2007 is that of the State Assembly. There is no dispute from the submissions of counsel before the court, that where a state Law made by the State House of Assembly contradicts or is inconsistent with the Laws made by the National Assembly, on the same subject matter, the Laws made by latter on the subject shall prevail, while the Law of the former shall to the extent of that inconsistency shall be declared null and void. This is settled.
The question that remains to be answered by this court is whether the 2007 laws of Lagos State House of Assembly remains inconsistent with the Act of 2002 promulgated by the National Assembly. The Law is already settled on interpretation of statute, that the court must first examine the ordinary literal meaning. The Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General Ogun State V. Alhaji A. Abernagba & ors. (1985) 4 S.C. (part 1)288 at 383, stated as follows:-
“In the interpretation of statutes, the ordinary literal meaning must first be examined. If the word are clear and unambiguous then the ordinary literal meaning must be given to them for then the intention of the maker has not been obscured. It is only where there is doubt or ambiguity, that recourse is made to other canons of interpretation. See Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) 6 -9 S.C. 51.”
On the interpretation of statutes, see also:- Oyeyemi V Commissioner for Local Government Kwara State (1992) SCJN 266 at 280; Artra Ind. Nig. Ltd. v. NBCI (1998) 13 SCJN 97 at 115; Bakare v. NRC (2007) 17 NWLR (pt.1064) 639: Odutola Holdings Ltd. v. Ladejobi (2006) 12 NWLR (pt. 994) 321 at 358: Unipetrol v. E.S.B.I.R. (2006) 8 NWLR (pt.983) 624 at 641; Rivers State Government V. Specialist Konsolt (2005) 7 NWLR (pt.923) 145 at 179.
The words used by the National Assembly on section 16(1) of the Act No. 11 of 2002 talks of “No person, not being registered..” (the underline mine). It did not go beyond registration. There is no word in the Act, which deals with the issuance of Licence. The issuance of Licence came into being with the Regulation of the Environmental Health Officers Registration Council which it made in 2007, and which was said to have been made in pursuance to the Act 2002. The issue of Licence was therefore never mentioned by the National Assembly in the Act of 2002. It was rather brought in by the Registration Council in its Regulation made in 2007. The inconsistency which the Appellant canvassed clearly is between the Regulations of the Registration Council of 2007, which was said to have been made pursuant to the 2002 Act, and the Laws of Lagos State also made in 2007, which provides for the issuance of licence (the underline mine). The Laws of Lagos State 2007 was made pursuant to the powers of the State House of Assembly, derivable from the Fourth Schedule (4) to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Can that law, be said to be inconsistent with the Regulations of Environmental Health Council? Certainly Not. put in another way can the Law of Lagos 2007, be said to be subordinate to the Regulations of Environmental Health Council 2007? Certainly Not. The word of the Act of the National Assembly of 2002 speaks of “Registration” if the contention of the Appellant stops at word “Registration” then of course there is inconsistency with the Lagos Laws 2007. The Act of 2002 provides that “Registration” in accordance with the Act “shall” be which is made mandatory, to any person entitled to hold any appointment in the public or private establishment body or institution, if holding of such appointment by him in Nigeria of any act pertaining to the profession for gain. The intention of the National Assembly in respect of “Registration” with the Environmental Health Council is completely exhaustive and exclusive to the Registration Council. The word “Nigeria” is used, it gives no exemption what so ever to any part of the country, or to any practitioner practicing for gain within Nigeria. This interpretation is in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in A.G. Ogun State v. A.G. Federation (supra). If the laws of Lagos State 2007 used the word “Registration” with the 1st Respondent, then clearly that brings it in conflict with the Act of 2002. However the word used by the Lagos Law 2007 is “issue, renew and revoke licence of private waste collectors”. The conflict as pointed out earlier for issuance of Licence, could only be with the Regulations of the Registration Council 2007. Certainly the Lagos State cannot in this instance be bound by the Regulations of Registration Council. The aspect that the Lagos State is bound, is not to appoint any private waste collectors (i.e. as it did to the 2nd – 5th Respondents) unless it is satisfied that such practitioner is duly Registered with Environmental Health Officers Registration Council of Nigeria, as provided for by the Act of 2002. After being satisfied it can issue them its own licence, renew, or revoke as the case may be. The aspect of the “Registration” in the opinion of this Court has not made the Laws of Lagos 2007 invalid, null and void, for it is not made in conflict with the Federal Laws of 2002.
The Learned trial judge in this matter fell into a grave error with his comment on page 142 of the Record, wherein he stated:-
“The State and Local Authorities can indeed set standards and regulate the practice and/or operation of the professionals, business and persons in activities of which it exclusively seized by virtue of constitutional provisions. To the extent any Federal enactment or regulation seeks to constrain the political space duly occupied by state and Local Authorities it is invalid, null, void and of no effect or efficacy.”
This cannot be correct, certainly not. Where conflict of Laws exist between the National and States Assemblies on the same subject, and the National Assembly which also derives its powers from the Constitution and so the states, the Laws made by the National Assemblies on the same subject shall prevail over that of the states, if the Law made has completely, exhaustively, and exclusively covered the space. This is the doctrine of “covering the fields” as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of A.G. Ogun State v. A.G. Federation (supra). The States in the presence of the Federal Laws on the same subject cannot go to establish what is called its own standards. In the present appeal this court had established earlier that the Act of 2002, has not invalidated the Laws of Lagos State 2007, and so it remains.
Before concluding on this issue, let me state the guiding principle generally established by the Supreme Court as to the interpretation of statute. See:- NIGER CARE DEV. CO. LTD. V. ADAMAWA STATE WATER BOARD & 3 ORS (2008) 2 – 3 S.9. (pt.11) 202: where in it was stated as follows:-
“The constitutionally of a statute or Law is not a small matter but a big fundamental matter in any legal system including ours. It involves the determination of the legal strength of a statute vis-a-vis the constitution. It has to do with the abrogation or nullification of a statute in the event of breach. Accordingly, before a statute law is pronounced unconstitutional by a court of law, there must be a clear contravention or violation of the constitution. It is not a playful or a playing exercise but one in which the court must have a very close look at the provisions of the Statute or Law. In the con of the constitutional provisions before arriving at a Decision. The court must not take pockets of the statute or Law but the entire statute or Law. In the same way, the court must not take pockets of the constitutional provision but the entire provisions to measure the Legal strength of the statute Law. As the final result of the exercise is not to kill a statutory provision or Law, the court must exercise utmost caution, a fortiori when the court is telling the legislature that it enacted the statute which is inconsistent with the constitution that it also enacted the role or function of the court is as heavy as that.”
Finally therefore, this court has declared that, the provisions the Lagos State Waste Management Authority Law No. 5 of 2007 and section 9(1) therefore, is not in any way in conflict with the provisions of Act No. 11 of 2002 of the Environmental Health officers Registration council Issue No.1 is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
On issue No 2. To wit the fact of whether the Appellant was not denied fair hearing by failure of the trial judge to give adequate considerations to all issues raised by Appellant before answering all the Appellants issues in the negative and refused all the Appellants reliefs (Ground 1).
Learned counsel to Appellant submitted that the judgment of the trial court in this case in view of the nature of the suit, the four(4) question for determination and 7(seven) reliefs was very short and did not consider adequately all the questions for determination raised by the Appellant before answering them in the negative and denied the Appellant all the refiefs sought. The said judgment is not in tanderm with the approved standard of a good judgment. See:- Adeyeye v. Ajiboye (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 432 at 451; Ayinde Adeyemo v. Okumola Arokopo (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.79) 703 at 721; Ciroma v. Ali & Others (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.590) 317; IBWA Ltd. v. Imano Nig. Ltd (2001) 17 WRN, United life & fire Ins. Co. Ltd. v. IBWA Ltd (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt.713) 610; Ajanaku v. Williams (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1129) 617; Adebayo v. A.G. Ogun State (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1085) 201.
Learned Counsel submitted that this court is invited pursuant to section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004 to intervene and hear this matter. This is a suit that was commenced by originating summons with supporting Affidavit and attached Exhibits. All the processes required for the proper determination of the issues as filed by all the parties in this matter are before this court. We urge this court to hear this matter and hold that the Appellant was denied fair hearing by failure on the part of the trial judge to give dispassionate consideration to all issues raised.
Learned counsel to Respondent replied that Appellant was not denied fair hearing. The trial court in the ruling highlighted the provisions of the Regulations and stated that those highlighted provisions are clear cases of legislative and regulatory over-reach in the light of details of the Forth Schedule to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. What else do the Appellant want the trial Court to do? A case that is incurably bad is bad and as member of the distinguish profession we must strive to uphold the principles of the rule of law.
On the part of this court, submissions of counsel is carefully examined. What constitute a fair hearing? The Supreme Court in the case of Mr. Yesufu Amuda Garba & ors. V. The University of Maduguri (1986) 2 S.C. 128 at 271 stated as follows
“To constitute a fair hearing whether it before the regular courts or before tribunals and board of inquiry, the person accused should know what is alleged against him he should be present when evidence against him is tendered: and he should be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict such evidence. How else is this done, if it be not by cross-examination? If these tribunals or boards or panels know that they cannot do all these, then they should leave these trials to the Law Court.”
In the instant appeal before this court, the Appellant commenced his action by means of an originating summons which was duly served on the Respondent. The Respondent filed his reply thereto. Parties were adequately heard, with various Exhibits tendered from both sides. The trial court duly entered its ruling on the 22/3/10. If the ruling of the court has not adequately answered all question posed in the originating summons to the satisfaction of the Appellant that is the reason for this appeal. Based on the issues as formulated by the Appellant this appeal was determined this court did not, and could not, find any case of denied of fair hearing by the trial court against the Appellant.
The Appellant invited this court to hear this appeal based on its powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004. This court has adequately heard the Appellant based on the resolution of its issue No.1. The Supreme Court in the case of Edejekpo & 2 Ors. v. Osia & 3 Ors. (2007) 3 S.C.(pt.1) 1 stated as follows
“Appeal” – meaning of all Appeals shall be by way of re-hearing” within the con of order 3 Rule 2(1) Court of Appeal Rules.
Means a rehearing on the issues raised before the Court of Appeal.”
This court cannot find any reason from the present or circumstance in this appeal to warrant the exercise of its powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004 to hear this case afresh. In the circumstance therefore issue No. 2 is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
Having resolved the two (2)issues in this appeal against the Appellant, and in favour of the Respondents, the appeal is devoid of any merit, and it is hereby dismissed by this court.
The Ruling of Hon. Justice C.E. Archibong delivered on the 22nd of March, 2010 in suit No. FHC/L/CS/698/2009 in the Federal High Court of Lagos Division is hereby affirmed by this court.
No order as costs.
AMINA A. AUGIE, J.C.A.: I have read the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Bage, JCA, and I agree entirely with his reasoning and conclusion. The function of a Court of law is to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in the clear tenor of the words contained in it. A Court of law has no jurisdiction to import into the Constitution or impute into the Constitution words that are not used therein, which will not bring out the intention of the makers of the Constitution, and as Tobi, JSC pointed out in Obusez v. Obusez (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 430 SC – “It is the duty of the Court to interpret the Constitution in line with the words used and the intention of the makers of the Constitution”. Section 4(5) of the Constitution gives supremacy to Federal Laws. The said Section provides that –
“If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail and that other law, shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”.
A State Law may be inconsistent with a Federal Law by the Federal Law dealing exhaustively with the subject matter so as to manifest an intention to exclude any other legislation thereon, and that is the doctrine of covering the field – see A.G. Ogun State v. A.G. Fed. (1982) NSCC 1 where Eso, JSC, explained that-
“…Where a matter legislated upon is in the concurrent list and the Federal Government has enacted a legislation in respect thereof, where the legislation enacted by the State is inconsistent with the legislation of the Federal Government it is indeed void and of no effect for inconsistency. Where, however, the legislation enacted by the State is the same as the one enacted by the Federal Government, where the two legislation are in pari materia — the State Legislation is in abeyance and becomes inoperative for the period the Federal Legislation is in force”.
Idigbe, JSC, also had this to say about the doctrine in the same case (supra) –
“If no general intention to cover the entire field on the subject can be gathered from the Federal law, then the mere concurrence of the two laws – – on the subject is not ipso facto an inconsistency although the detailed rules in the provisions of both laws may lead to different results on the same facts; and in the words of Colin Howard—“unless the two rules actually contradict one another it is a question of legislative intention–to be inferred from the legislative con, whether the laws in question complement one another or ore inconsistent. If there is on inconsistency it invalidates the State Law only so long as the Commonwealth Law remains in force”
In this appeal, the quarrel is not between a Federal Law and a State Law per se; it is between the Appellant, who is a body established pursuant to a Federal Law – the Environmental Health Officers (Registration, Etc.) Act 2002, and the Respondent, an Authority established pursuant to a State Law, that is the Lagos Waste Management Authority Law 2007, and the issue is whether the 2007 State Law is inconsistent with the Act of 2002. In Obusez v. Obusez (supra), which dealt with a Lagos State Law, the Supreme Court held that –
“Section 49(5) of the Administration of Estates Law Lagos State does not purport to legislate on matters preserved for the National Assembly – – Section 49 (5) – – deals specifically with “succession to real and personal estate on intestacy” – – While item 60 on the Exclusive Legislative List also speaks specifically of the formation, annulment and dissolution of marriage other than marriages under Islamic Law and/or Customary Law. The Constitutional provisions in item 60 of the Exclusive list – pertains and limited to the formation, annulment and dissolution of marriages and cannot be expanded to cover cases of succession to, distribution and administration of the estate of an intestate. Similarly – – Item 67 of the Exclusive legislative List – – cannot be construed to include matters beyond those specifically mentioned in item 60. These specific clear and unambiguous provisions both of the Constitution and the Administration of Estate Law of Lagos must be accorded their ordinary grammatical meaning, which alone speaks and discloses the intention of the law makers”.
Applying the same reasoning to this case, the State Law, which empowers the Respondent to “issue, renew and revoke license of private waste collectors”, does not give it powers to “register, regulate and standardize the practice of the Profession of Environmental Health Officers and Environmental Health Service Providers” in Lagos State. It is only the Appellant that is empowered to exercise those functions, not just in Lagos State, but all over the Federation, and so, there is nothing like inconsistency between the 2007 Act and 2007 Law.
In the circumstances, I also dismiss the appeal. I also abide by the consequential orders in the lead Judgment including the order as to no costs.
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: My learned brother the Hon. Justice S. D. Bage, JCA, has obliged me with a draft of the judgment prepared and just delivered by him.
Having adopted the reasoning and conclusion reached in the judgment in question, I have no hesitation in concurring with my learned brother, to the effect that the appeal is devoid of merits, and it’s hereby dismissed by me.
The ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division in Suit No.FHC/L/CS/698/2009, is hereby affirmed.
Appearances
Chief Solo Akuma (SAN) with Roseline NdukweFor Appellant
AND
Olubukola Adeyemo Mrs. (Esq.)For Respondent
