EPHRAIM EZE NWUKWA & ORS v. GIBSON AGUNTA
(2018)LCN/11942(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 13th day of July, 2018
CA/E/286/2010
RATIO
EVIDENCE; WAYS TO PROVING TITLE TO LAND
“It is trite that the following are the different ways of proving title to land:
a) Traditional evidence;
b) Production of document of title which are duly authenticated;
c) Acts of possession which include selling, leasing, renting, out all or part of the land and farming on it or a portion to warrant the interference of exclusive ownership of;
d) Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land;
e) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the disputed land. See Idundun v Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC; Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR Pt.7 Pg.393; Okereke v. Nwankwo (2003) 9 NWLR Pt. 826 Pg. 592 at 601.” PER HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH TINE TUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. EPHRAIM EZE NWUKWA
2. BERTRAM ONIGBO
3. MRS. OZOUDE Appellant(s)
AND
GIBSON AGUNTA Respondent(s)
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Enugu State, delivered by Hon. Justice P.I. Enejere on 12/06/2008 wherein the learned trial judge entered judgment for the Respondent.
The Respondent as Plaintiff in Suit No. HOR/459/93 and HOR/460/93 which were consolidated by the lower Court sued the Appellants and claimed in his further amended statement of claim as follows:
a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to statutory Right of occupancy to the piece or parcel of land known as and called ‘Ani Umuomanuba Abgalaenyi Nachi’ more particularly delineated and verged PINK in plan No. BOCO96/LD03/EN of 6th June, 1996 with an annual rental value of N100.00 (One Hundred naira) situate at Agbalaenyi Nachi, Oji River.
b) N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) damages for trespass.
c) An injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, servants, agents and privies from further trespassing into the plaintiff’s said land.
d) An Order directing the defendants to remove all foreign materials deposited on the Plaintiff?s land and make good the damages already done.
The Appellants counterclaimed against the Respondent for a declaration that they are entitled to the right of occupancy over the same parcel of land. In proof of his case, the Respondent called seven witnesses while the Appellants called five witnesses in defence and proof of the counterclaim. The lower Court held that the Respondent is entitled to the statutory Right of occupancy to the land in dispute.
The Appellants being dissatisfied with the said judgment filed a notice of appeal on 28/08/08, an amended notice of appeal was filed on 28/10/14, records were transmitted on 4/11/10 and deemed filed on 8/7/15, and Appellant’s brief was filed on 16/4/15 and deemed filed on 8/7/2015. Respondent’s brief was filed on 21/11/16 and deemed filed on 28/11/17. Appellants filed a reply to the Respondent’s brief on 4/7/17 and deemed filed on 8/7/17.
Mr. Ugochukwu Eze Esq. who settled the Appellants? brief identified three issues therein, for the determination of the appeal to wit:
1. Whether, from the pleadings and evidence before the Court, the Respondent could be said to have satisfied the requirements of traditional evidence to warrant grant of title in his favour?
(Distilled from grounds 5 and 6).
2. Whether there was fair and proper evaluation of the evidence and materials before the trial Court? (Distilled from grounds 1, 2 and 3).
3. Whether the lower Court was right in granting injunction against the Appellants in the circumstance of this case? (Distilled from ground 4).
In a brief settled by Chief E.E. Owonta, the Respondent identified three issues for determination of the appeal to wit.
1. Whether this Court can interfere with the findings of the lower Court in this case (Distilled from grounds 1, 4, and 5).
2. Whether it is proper for the lower Court to enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent(Distilled from ground 2).
3. Whether it is proper for the lower Court to dismiss the Counter claim of the Defendants/Appellants (Distilled from ground 3).
I have looked at the record, and the grounds of the appeal. It is my humble view that the complaints raised by the Appellant can be determined with the following sole issue:
Whether it is proper for the trial Court to enter judgment in favour of the Respondent and to dismiss the counter claim of the Appellants.
SOLE ISSUE:
Whether it is proper for the trial Court to enter judgment in favour of the Respondent and to dismiss the counter claim of the Appellants.
Appellants’ counsel argued that the learned trial judge was wrong when he held that the Respondent had established his title by traditional evidence. Counsel cited: Akanbi v Salawu (2003)13 NWLR Pt. 838 Pg. 637
Counsel submitted that once a party relying on traditional evidence pleads and traces the root of his title to a particular person or family, he must establish how that person, also came to have title vested in him. He cannot ignore the proof of his overload?s title and rely on long possession. Counsel cited: Mogaji v.Cadbury NIG Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR Pt.7 393.
Counsel further submitted that the Respondent only pleaded and led evidence to trace his root of title to his great forebear Umubo without more. This is no evidence of tradition which could support a claim of title based on traditional history and does not at all indicate how Umubo came to own the land.
Counsel Submitted that it is necessary to plead what the ancestor did specifically to actualize the founding. The Respondent only pleaded and led evidence that the Umuomanuba family inherited the land from his father down the line to Umubo their great ancestor. It was not pleaded nor evidence led that Umubo founded the land or whether there was another founder before him, it was not pleaded nor was evidence led as to what the ancestor of the Respondent did specifically to actualize the founding.
Counsel submitted that it is trite that where evidence of traditional history is relied upon in proof of declaration of title to land, for a party to succeed, that party is bound to plead established facts showing who the founder of the land was, and how he founded it. Counsel cited: Onwugbufor v. Okoye (1996) 1 SCNJ 1 at Pg. 21; Obioha v. Duru (1994) 10 SCNJ 48 at Pg. 61.
Counsel further submitted that the Respondent failed woefully to establish his title to the land by traditional history and the lower Court was wrong to have found otherwise.
Counsel submitted that where evidence of traditional history has failed evidence of long possession built on the traditional evidence also fails Counsel cited: Ajani v Ladepo (1986) 3 NWLR Pt. 28 Pg. 276.
Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the evaluation of evidence is the duty of the Court. Counsel cited: Olodo v Josiah (2011) 47 NSCQR 133. However, where it is proved that the findings of the trial Court are not supported by the evidence on record, the law permits the Court of Appeal to look at the evidence on record and make an objective finding of facts in place of a perverse finding made by the trial Court. Counsel cited: Joe v. Co-operative bank (2003) 4 MJSC Pg. 171 at 185; Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1956) 1 FSC Pg. 87 at 89; Lawal v. Dawodu (1972) 1 ALL NLR Pt.2 Pg. 270 at 286; Balogun v. Akanji (1988) 1 NWLR Pt. 70 Pg. 301 at 315.
The Respondent called the land in dispute ‘Ani Umuomanuba Agbalaenyi’ while the Appellants called the same land ‘Ikoaga Umuonukwulu land at Agbalaenyi’. Counsel argued that the testimony of PW1 (Respondent) on the 5th of April 2006 that, The land in dispute is part of Ikoaga land that is Ani Umuomanuba.
My family acquired the land from Umuogbali. This land in dispute was initially called in the olden days Ani-Nwefi, is still part of the record and is in contrast with evidence of traditional history which Respondent attempted but failed to pursue.
Counsel submitted that DW5 told the Court at pages 255-258 of the record that their land which was given by them to the Respondent (Umuomanuba family) did not extend to the land now in dispute, contrary to the Respondent’s claim.
Counsel submitted that the trial Court in its judgment did not demonstrate any evaluation of this crucial evidence of DW5 on this matter nor was probative value attached to it; the trial Court perversely preferred the evidence of Respondent’s witnesses to those of the Appellant’s witnesses.
Counsel further submitted that the findings of the trial Court at page 20 of the record that the Iroko tree found on the land belongs to the Umuonukwulu family was not translated into any evidential value in favour of the Appellants by the lower Court. The learned trial Court was therefore wrong in dismissing the Appellants’ counterclaims, as the appellants proved their counterclaim by credible evidence and ought to have had judgment entered in their favour.
Counsel submitted that at page 184, of the record inlines 11 and 12, PW1(the Respondent) stated that: ”We have a parcel of land not in dispute between Unuogbali and the land in dispute in the south”.
However, at pages 199-200 of the record, the Respondent reversed his position under cross-examination. Also at page 184 of the record (line 32), PW1 told the Court that Onuko is the same person as Aguoma Nwanuko but under cross examination at page 200 of the record he denied ever saying it.
Counsel further submitted that these and other contradictions in the evidence of the witness was enough to discredit him and disbelieve his story, yet the lower Court indulged it with probative value above the evidence of the Appellants’ witnesses.
Counsel submitted that as in this case, the Supreme Court held that when in a claim for declaration of title, the party relying on traditional history and his witnesses give conflicting history of the party’s root of title, such root would be treated as unreliable. Counsel insisted that the evidence of P.W.1 was pleaded and that the evidence is relevant to the proceedings.
Respondent’s counsel in opposition, submitted that the Appeal Court can interfere with the findings of the trial Court when the finding is not based on evidence. Counsel cited: Ominiyi v. Alabi (2004) 6 NWLR Pt. 870 Pg. 551. The trial Court after considering the evidence before him suo motu invited the parties for visit to the locus in quo to see things for himself after the counsel for the parties had submitted their written addresses, hence the evidence at locus in quo is not reflected in the written addresses.
Counsel further submitted that the trial Court found during the visit to the locus in quo that the Appellants in their pleadings and survey plans enlarged the Area in dispute to include the house of one Angus Agu and other lands not in dispute in the Respondent’s survey plan.
Counsel submitted that the 2nd Appellant in his evidence on oath at the locus in quo admitted that the house of Angus Agu is not on the land in dispute. The Court found that the shrine on the land in dispute belongs to the Respondent marked by Ogili tree.
This shrine of the Respondent is Onuanidinta shrine. The Court found out that it is no longer being worshipped as the would be priest became a Christian as the evidence of P.W.1 indicated. That the Appellants who claim that their own shrine is still being worshipped as stated in paragraph 19 of their Statement of Defence and in their evidence on record could not show any shrine that is still being worshipped on the land in dispute. The Court found that the Appellants lied to the Court.
Counsel further submitted that the trial Court found that the grave of the ancestor of the Respondent one Aguoma Nwaonuku who was the 1st priest of the shrine Onuanidinta is on the land in dispute marked by Ajaezi tree.
Counsel submitted that the trial Court found at pages 10-17 of the record that both parties have adjourning lands to the land in dispute. The Court also found at page 22 of the Record that the house of Mr. Ozoude(3rd Respondent) was completed after the commencement of the suit.
Counsel submitted that the trial Court found that there are concurrent acts of possession of the land in dispute by the parties. Having found this the only option for the lower Court was to look for who among the parties has a better root of title.
Counsel further submitted that the land sold to the Landlord’s Association is one of the causes of action. That one cannot acquire possession of land by acts of trespass. Counsel cited Ezekwesili v Agbapuonwu (2003) 9 NWLR Pt. 825 Pg. 363-364.
Counsel submitted that in view of the above, it is evident that the findings of the trial Court are based on the evidence on record before him. Furthermore for the Court to satisfy itself on these testimonies the Court Suo Motu went to the locus inquo and was fully convinced on the facts before it that the testimonies of the Respondent and his witnesses are credible, and as such this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
Counsel further submitted that the Appellants on their part in their counter claim pleaded their root of title in Paragrapghs 12, 17 and 19 of their statement of Defence in HOR/E/459/93 and paragraphs 14, 19 and 29 of their Statement of Defence in HOR/E/460/93. These are contained at pages 53, 54, 59 and 60 of the Records. There was no direct pleading by the Appellants of their own root of title.
Counsel submitted that the trial Court had no option but to look for who has a better title amongst the parties. Counsel cited: Jiwul v. Dimlong (2003)9 NWLR Pt. 824 Pg. 213. The trial Court found that the Plaintiff/Respondent has a better title. The Plaintiff/Respondent stated how the land devolved from his ancestor Omanuba to his present family and that Omanuba inherited the land from their great ancestor Umubo. It is from this their great ancestor Umubo that the village of Umubo in Nachi got its name.
Counsel submitted that the contention of the Appellants at page 187 of the records that that was the first time the Respondent took possession of the land in dispute is misconceived. At page 196 of the Records of Appeal the PW1 (Plaintiff) made it clear that his ancestors were in possession of the land in dispute but at a stage the Umuogbali came and snatched the land from his ancestors. The mysterious deaths that affected the Umuogbali people made them to look for dibias who told them that the only solution is for them to return the land to Umuomanuba (Respondent) which they did.
Counsel submitted that this case was tried under the old High Court Rules of Enugu State when there was no frontloading. The evidence of PW1 in the passages is not pleaded in the Statement of the plaintiff; it therefore goes to no issue.
Counsel submitted that the Respondent has superior acts of possession, and that the trial Court could not have entered judgment for the Appellants in the Counter claim.
Counsel submitted that the court rightly held that the house of Mrs. Ozoude (3rd Appellant) which is one of the causes of action was completed while the suit was pending. This is contemptuous. Counsel cited Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990) 10 SCNJ 69. Counsel further submitted that there are numerous material contradictions in the testimonies of the Appellants’ witnesses which can vitiate the claim.
Counsel cited: Egesimba v. Onuzuruike (2002) 15 NWLR Pt. 791 Pg. 466 at 482.
Appellants’ Counsel in reply to the Respondent?s argument submitted that the Respondent cited the case of Jiwul v Dimlong (2003) 9 NWLR Pt.824 Pg. 213 to support the contention that the Respondent has established better title based on traditional evidence which is that clear evidence of the founder and the intervening owners must be shown and they must lead to the claimant.
Counsel submitted that the alleged contradiction in the evidence of DW5 is not material and did not derogate from the substance of the Appellants case as pursued at the trial Court.
Counsel submitted that the evidence of the Respondent was materially controverted, while the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses is superior and more credible and ought to have been given more probative value, and urged this Court to intervene in the interest of justice.
Counsel further submitted that the PW1 used the word ‘acquired’ in the first Passage at page 187 but used the word ‘recovered’ at page 196. The word: recovered is the rightful word.
Counsel submitted that the learned trial judge erred in law when it granted the injunction against the Appellants on the assumption that they were trespassers. The appellants were in long possession and established better title, and an injunction is not granted to restrain a party in possession who also has a superior title.
Counsel urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.
OPINION
Let me first address the issue of whether the Respondent properly proved the founder of the land in dispute as required by law.
It is trite that the following are the different ways of proving title to land:
a) Traditional evidence;
b) Production of document of title which are duly authenticated;
c) Acts of possession which include selling, leasing, renting, out all or part of the land and farming on it or a portion to warrant the interference of exclusive ownership of;
d) Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land;
e) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the disputed land. See Idundun v Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC; Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR Pt.7 Pg.393; Okereke v. Nwankwo (2003) 9 NWLR Pt. 826 Pg. 592 at 601.
The learned trial judge found as follows at Pg. 14-15 of the records:
In his examination in chief the PW1 testified that the present Umuomanuba family inherited the land in dispute from his father Agunta who in turn inherited it from Aguoma, who also inherited it from Onuko, who inherited it from Omanuba who inherited it from Umubo their great ancestor.
It is his evidence that Umubo village Nachi which is his village derived its name from this their ancestor. He testified that this land in dispute was recovered from Umuogbali who had snatched it from his family. The land he said was snatched during the time of Onuko.
It is my view that in the instant case the plaintiff averred and gave evidence of how the land in dispute devolved upon his present family of Umuomanuba.
The defendants offered no root of title at all, and they could not challenge this evidence of root of title preferred by the plaintiff neither could they discredit the evidence on cross-examination.
The first complaint by the Appellant is that the Respondent did not state precisely how their ancestor came about the land in dispute or how the original ancestor of the party actualized the founding. In giving the traditional history of a disputed land, the claimant is usually required to state whether the ancestor through whom the claimant is making the claim deforested the land, tamed it, acquired it by conquest or was the first settler on the land. A claimant for declaration of title must plead and prove:
a) The founder of the land
b) How he founded the said land and
c) The particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims down to the plaintiff. Counsel cited Anyafulu v. Meka (2014) 57 NSCQR Pt. 1 Pg. 185 at 217.
In Akanbi v. Salawu (2003) 13 NWLR Pt. 838 Pg. 637 at Pg. 650-651, the Supreme Court held as follows:
”To rely on traditional history, a party must be familiar with the substance of history, and he must in practical terms do this by pleading the name of the ancestor who founded the land and the names of those after him whom the land devolved up to the last successor or successors. It is also necessary to plead what the ancestor did specifically to actualize the founding. Evidence will be led systematically in support of the history without leaving gaps or creating mysterious or embarrassing linkages which are difficult to explain.”
The learned trial judge made some initial findings of fact which led to the conclusions set out above, which on thorough reading of the record, I agree with. I will now set them down seriatim;
1. The learned trial judge found after a visit to the locus in quo, there were no conflicts regarding the boundaries of the land in dispute even though the dispute plan of the Appellants included the portion of land of a 3rd party not party to the litigation – one AgusAgu. The Court held on Pg.11 of the Record as follows:
All the parties in this case agreed during the visit to the locus that the identity of the land in dispute is as shown in Exhibit B and C and that the identity of the land is certain
The land in dispute is 2ft into the land belonging to the 2nd defendant Bertram Onuigbo.
2. While the Appellant referred to the disputed land as ‘Ikpoaga Umuonekwulu at Agbalaenyi’, the Respondent referred to it as ‘AniUmuomanuba Agbalaenyi Nachi’.
However that alone is not enough to show that there was dispute regarding the identity of the land. See: Ogbo v Wokoma (2005) 4 FWLR Pt. 292 Pg. 2123 at Pg. 2146 see also: Aremu v Adetoro (2007) 16 NWLR Pt. 1060 Pg.244
3. The Court observed at the locus in quo that there are concurrent act of ownership and possession by both parties. The Court went on to give detailed acts of ownership and possession proved by both parties.
4. The Learned trial judge found that the 2 families (disputants) own lands adjacent to the land in dispute.
5. The Court found that the Umuomanuba family land borders the disputed land on the south and the Umuonokwulu family land borders the disputed land on the north and west.
6. The Court then rightly concluded that the contiguity of boundary rule could not avail either party as either party could claim it and thus the claim cancels each other,
7. That the shrine in the land in dispute Onuanidinta or Umuomanubashrine belong to the Plaintiff/Respondent’s family. That the Appellants who claim that their shrine is still being worshipped could not show any such shrine, and that they told lies to the Court.
8. That there is a grave of the plaintiff’s ancestor Aguoma on the land in dispute.
9. That the Respondent is harvesting the Uchakiri tree while one of the Appellants harvests the mango tree which the Respondent claims that he also harvests.
10. That no family member of the parties resides on the land in dispute.
11. That there are farms of both the Respondent’s family and the Appellants’ family on the land in dispute.
12. That the house of Angus Agu is not on the land in dispute but the Appellants included it in their plan.
I agree with the Respondent and the learned trial judge that in such a situation it is the person who is able to prove better his root of title that is entitled to a declaration of title to the disputed land.
There is no doubt that where two parties are contending ownership of a piece of land, the Court has to determine who had established better ownership. See: Jiwul v Dimlong (2003) 9 NWLR Pt.824 Pg.213
Let us look at the pleadings and the evidence at the trial Court. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Respondent’s pleadings on Pg.38 of the record traced the root of title to the whole land they laid claim to including the land in dispute up to one Umubo the great Ancestor of the Respondent
9. The 3rd defendant further avers that the Umuonukwulu family has been on the land exercising all ownership and possessory rights over the land from time immemorial till date. The plaintiff is not the most senior and is nowhere in rank in seniority in Agunta/Umuomanuba family. The plaintiff’s eldest brother of full blood called Mr. Moses Agunta had once told the plaintiff to stay off the land because there was and still is a clear boundary between Umuonukwulu family land and Umuomanuba family land. The Umuomanuba family land in question was acquired by them from the umuogbali family, Nachi who originally owned the land.
10. The 3rd defendant also avers that sometime in 1956 the whole people of Ozoechebe, Ozoagbu, Ezenwugwu Nwali hamlets all from Umuonukwulu and Moses Agunta, Louis Onyia and Beluk Ude hamlets from Umuomanuba visited the land in question, inspected same, after which it was decided by all that Umuonukwulu family owns the land. The said BelukUde (now late) was a member of Oju River landlords Association, which acquired the portion of land subject matter of suit No.E/459/93, from the defendant.
On the other hand, even though there was a counterclaim, apart from vehemently denying the claim of the Respondent, the Appellants never made any effort to trace their own root of title. For example the beginning of paragraph 7 of the statement of defence states thus at pg. 52 of the record:
”The 2nd defendant further avers that the Umuonukwulu family has been on the land exercising all ownership and possessory rights over the land from time immemorial till date.”
In paragraph 12 of the same statement of defence the Appellants claimed as follows on pg. 53 of the record:
In further answer to this paragraph, the 2nd defendant avers that Omanuba is a village in Nachi and not the great grandfather of the plaintiff as he claims. Ozo Onukwulu was the founding father of Onukwulu family. He has as children Ugbo, Ozo Echebe, Ozo Ene and Udeozo Ume. At a time, one of the children of Ugbo called J.C. Obi surveyed the whole Ikpoaga Umuonukwulu land in collaboration with other male children of Ozo Onukwulu sons.”
Paragraph 16 and 17 are no better since they merely stated long acts of possession.
In this instant case, while the Respondent was able to prove his root of title without actually stating how his forbearer found the land, I agree with the learned trial judge that as against the Appellants who did not make any effort to show how his own ancestors got on the land, I am persuaded that the Respondent proved better title to the disputed land on a balance of probabilities.
The learned Appellants’ counsel complained that the trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence between the parties and that had the Court done so, it would have appreciated the contradictions in the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses. On Pg.15-16 of the record, the learned trial judge considered all the instances of the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW7 wherein the learned Appellants’ counsel claimed that there were material contradictions in the evidence of those Respondent’s witnesses.
I have read their evidence on pg. 180-205, 210-215 and 221-223 of the record respectively, and I agree with the learned trial judge that the so called contradictions if they existed at all did not go to the moot of the claim of the Respondent in order to discredit the evidence led by the Respondent’s witnesses.
The trial Court emphasized the fact that even though both parties claimed to have a shrine on the disputed land, on the Court’s visit to the locus in quo, it was the Respondent who offered a more and better description of the existence of their shrine.
There is no doubt that the law permits and indeed expects a Court of Appeal in appropriate circumstances to look at the evidence on record and make objective findings of facts in place of a perverse finding made by the trial Court, in the interest of justice. See: Joe v. Co-operative bank (2003) 4 MJSC Pg. 171 at 185; Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1956) 1 FSC Pg. 87 at 89; Lawal v. Dawodu (1972) 1 ALL NLR Pt.2 Pg. 270 at 286; Balogun v. Akanji (1988) 1 NWLR Pt. 70 Pg. 301 at 315.
However, having read the record and the briefs of both counsel in this appeal and after weighing the evidence of the parties at trial, it is obvious to me that while the Respondent proved their claim on a balance of probabilities being more credible and superior, the Appellants were not at all able to prove the counter claim.
In the circumstances, this appeal is totally without merit and it is liable to be dismissed. The erudite judgment of Hon. Justice P.I Enejere delivered on 12/6/08 in consolidated suits No. HOR/459/93 and HOR/460/93, with all the orders contained therein is hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed. N100,000 costs against the Appellants for the Respondent
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I have read before now the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, the PJ. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU J.C.A. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the Appeal is devoid of merit and deserves nothing but dismissal. In this vein, I hereby dismiss the Appeal. I abide by the consequential orders made in the said lead judgment.
JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
Uzochukwu EzeFor Appellant(s)
Chief E.E Owonta with him, D.C. Odugu, Esq. and G.O. Agbo EzeFor Respondent(s)
