GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC v. MR. AKINSIKU ADEDAMOLA & ORS (2019)

GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC v. MR. AKINSIKU ADEDAMOLA & ORS

(2019)LCN/12776(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 1st day of March, 2019

CA/L/1285/15

RATIO

JURISDICTION: JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ENFORCE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

“However, where the main or principal claim is not the enforcement or securing the enforcement of a fundamental right, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be properly invoked or exercised as the Court will be incompetent to do so
See: also ADEKUNLE Vs. A.G., OGUN STATE (2014) LPELR-22569 (CA) Pg. 42-43, Paras. E – G; JIMOH Vs. JIMOH (2018) LPELR-43793 (CA) Pg. 21-24, Paras. C – F and PRINCESS Vs. GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44986 (CA) Pg. 49-57, Paras. D – D where this Court reiterated this settled position of the law that: for an application for the Enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights entrenched in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) to be grounded, it must be shown by the Applicant that, the breach of the Fundamental right is the main claim.” PER TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC Appellant(s)

AND

1. MR. AKINSIKU ADEDAMOLA
2. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
3. BABA MUHAMMED AZARI Respondent(s)

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):

This appeal is against the Judgment of the Federal High Court Lagos Division delivered by Abang J. on the 13th day of November 2015 in suit No. FHC/L/CS/862/2015, wherein the learned trial Judgment gave Judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent against the Appellant, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

The 1st Respondent in this appeal commenced action against the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents by way of application for enforcement of his fundamental rights. The reliefs sought by the applicant at the Court below read as follows:

a. An order of Court restraining the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent from intimidating, threatening and arresting the Applicant under the guise of investigating an offence committed by one Akinshiku Roy.

b. A declaration that the constant barrage of telephone calls from the 3rd Respondent threatening to arrest the Applicant is unlawful and breach of the Applicants Fundamental Rights as guaranteed and protected by Section 44 of 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria.

c. An order of Court directing the Respondent to release the Restriction placed on the Applicants Bank account numbers 0014455802 and 0014455819 Account name Akinshiku Adedamola with Guarantee Trust Bank Plc.

d. N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) as compensation for illegal and unlawful freezing of account of the Applicant.

e. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUCTION restraining the Respondents whether by themselves, their agents, privies/or servants from harassing, arresting, and threatening the Applicant in any manner whatsoever in connection with a crime allegedly committed by one Akinshiku Roy.

‘Parties filed all relevant processes at the Court below, and upon hearing the application by the 1st Respondent in this appeal, the lower Court found in favour of the Applicant and awarded damages for breach of the Applicant’s fundamental rights in the sum of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira) for freezing the Applicant’s Bank Accounts, and N20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) cost.

The Judgment did not go down well with the Appellant who now filed several notices of appeal but eventually withdrew some and settled for the amended Notice of appeal filed on the 22nd day of March 2016 containing 9 grounds of appeal. The amended notice of appeal was deemed as properly filed and served on the 3rd day of December 2018, the day this appeal was taken. I need not reproduce the grounds.

The brief of the Appellant was filed by learned Counsel Lekan Oni on the 22nd day of March 2016, it was deemed as properly filed and served on the 3rd day of December 2018. The 1st Respondent filed brief on the 23rd day of November 2016, through learned Counsel Chike Okoro, it was also deemed as properly filed and served on the 3rd day of December 2018. The Appellants reply brief was filed on the 13th day of September 2017 by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed no briefs of argument.

In the Appellant’s brief of argument, learned Counsel Oni nominated the following four issues for determination and submitted arguments.

i. Whether from the banker-customer relationship that exists between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent, the facts of the case and the main relief sought by the 1st Respondent against the Appellant being the lifting of the restriction placed on his account, the Learned Trial Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the Appellant under the fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009? (Ground one of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

ii. Whether from the facts and evidence before Court the Appellant had breach the 1st Respondents right to fair hearing, liberty and privacy? (Grounds, 2,3,4,6 and 9 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

iii. Whether the Appellant was denied a fair hearing. (Grounds 7 and 8 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

iv. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right to have held in part relief No. 4 for damages and award damages and cost against the Appellant where the 1st Respondent had abandoned relief No.5 against the Appellant in the originating process filed. (Ground 5 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

On the part of the 1st Respondent, learned Counsel Okoro identified three issues for determination, they are also reproduced as follows:

i. Whether the trial Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. (Distilled from grounds 1,2,3, and 4 of the amended notice of appeal.)

ii. Whether the uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence should be acted upon by the Court. (Distilled from grounds 2,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 of the amended notice of appeal).

iii. Whether the restriction placed on the 1st Respondent?s bank accounts followed due process. (Distilled from grounds 5 and 6 of the amended notice of appeal.).

As I stated earlier in this judgment, Counsel representing the Appellant and the 1st Respondent submitted arguments on the issues nominated for determination in this appeal. I will take the arguments as canvassed before I proceed to resolve the issues.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

Submitting on Appellant?s issue number one, learned Counsel cited the decision in ALHAJI TSOHO DAN AMALE Vs. SOKOTO LOCAL GOVT & ORS (2014) 10 WRN 32, to submit that the principal relief sought by the Applicant at the Court below does not disclose breach of fundamental rights because the Applicant approached the Court seeking for an order to release his account, having been frozen by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, and then sought for an order restraining the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from harassing intimidating or arresting him, Counsel said the Applicant did not seek for any restraining order against the Appellant.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the relationship between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent is purely contractual, it is a relation of Banker and Customer, and any perceived breach could only give rise to an action for breach of contract and not breach of fundamental rights. The lower Court therefore learned Counsel said, had no jurisdiction to entertain the Applicants application for enforcement of fundamental rights. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then submitted relying on the decision in MAI Vs. STB LTD (2008) 11 WRN 183 at page 2, that Banker Customer relationship is contractual and where a customer makes a demand, and the demand is not met by the banker like in the instant case, the Customer’s cause of action shall be in an action for damages under their contractual relationship, learned Counsel also relied on the decision in WEMA BANK PLC Vs. OSILARU (2008) WRN 160 page 177.

Learned Counsel submitted that the claim against the Appellant is for specific performance of the contract between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent, there is no allegation of breach of fundamental right of the Applicant by the Appellant, the claim is therefore incompetent because it cannot be founded in an action seeking to enforce the fundamental rights of the Applicant, and therefore the Applicant did not lead any credible evidence from the affidavit in support of the application to show that the Appellant acted in breach of the Applicants fundamental right. Learned Counsel for the Appellant therefore urged this Court to hold that Applicants application at the Court below was incompetent and therefore deserved to be struck out because the Court below lacked jurisdiction, he urged this Court to so hold and resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

Submitting on Appellant’s issue number two, Learned Counsel said the Appellant was not in a position to do more than it did in the circumstance, it had no power to grant or deny fair hearing to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents before putting the 1st Respondent?s account under restriction, the Appellant said upon receiving instructions from the 2nd Respondent to freeze the 1st Respondents account, the Appellant duly informed the 1st Respondent, this fact was deposed to by the 1st Respondent himself that he was informed of the directive freezing his account which came from the 2nd Respondent. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Appellant was not even aware of the reasons for the action taken by 2nd Respondent against the 1st Respondent. Appellant said it only got directive to freeze the accounts, and duly complied since it was not in a position to refuse to comply.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that when it conveyed the directive to freeze the 1st Respondent’s account, the 1st Respondent did not make any representation to it, he instead instructed his Counsel to write the 2nd Respondent. Counsel said the 1st Respondent did not allege breach of fundamental right against the Appellant, it was therefore a misconception for the lower Court to find the Appellants liable for breaching the fundamental right of the 1st Respondent.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the lower Court held that the liberty of the 1st Respondent was breached, Counsel said the evidential burden placed on him by law to warrant judgment being entered in his favour was not discharged. Learned Counsel referred to the decision in GUSAU Vs. UMEZURIKE (2013) 28 WRN 111 to submit that the duty to establish that the Applicants right to fair hearing was breached rests squarely on the Appellant because the law is trite that he who asserts must prove. On the findings made by the learned trial Judge at page 51 of the records of appeal that the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent acted in concert, learned Counsel said at paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the application for enforcement of fundamental rights, the 1st Respondent deposed that his account was in fact frozen by the 2nd Respondent, this therefore shows that the conclusion by the learned trial Judge is perverse, Counsel therefore urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

On issue number three, learned Counsel referred to the decision in SALAMI Vs. UBN PLC (2011) 8 WRN 130, to submit that a party must not be condemned unheard and that a man must not be a judge in his own cause. Counsel also referred to the decision in ABUJA-TRANS-NATIONAL MARKET Vs. ABDU (2008) 1 WRN 43 Page 70-71 to further submit that both sides must be heard and that parties in litigation must be granted equal opportunity and advantage and that justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant said the 1st Respondents case was premised on breach of fundamental right to liberty, freedom of movement and right to compulsory acquisition of property, Counsel said the Learned Trial Judge suo motu raised the issue of right to privacy and held that the Appellant acted in breach of the 1st Respondents right to fair hearing and privacy. Learned Counsel said the Appellant was not granted the opportunity to be heard by the Trial Court on the issue of fair hearing and right to privacy. Counsel agreed that the learned trial Judge could raise an issue suo motu but that the Appellant will be entitled to be heard before the issue is determined by the lower Court. It was then submitted by learned Counsel that the law frowns against a Court of law raising an issue suo motu no matter how clear the issue is and resolving it without hearing the parties, he relied on the decision inLAWAL Vs. A.G. KWARA STATE (2011) 19 WRN page 92 at 127 and YOUNAN Vs. WILLIAMS (2008) 33 WRN 100.

Counsel for the Appellant contended that even where the lower Court held the view that Appellant’s Counter affidavit was incompetent and deficient, it can only be held to be so against the issues raised by the 1st Respondent, not against the issue raised and resolved suo motu by the lower Court. Learned Counsel relied on the decision in CHARLES ODEDO Vs. PDP & PRS (2015) 33 WRN 1 to contend that no issue raised suo motu by the Court is trivial, granting parties hearing on the issue is necessary especially the party that is likely to be disadvantaged when the point is resolved.

Learned Counsel referred to Order IX Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement (Procedure) Rules 2009 to submit that it was a grave denial of fair hearing for the lower Court to deny the Appellant the right to file its counter affidavit, that the hearing at the Court below was not fair because the Appellant was denied hearing before the lower Court took a decision. Counsel referred to the decision in NEPC VS. BAMBA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (2008) 24 WRN 142, to contend that, a trial will be seen to be fair if the contending parties are given equal opportunity to be heard in a matter. Rounding up submissions on this point, learned Counsel said, the lower Court erred in law when it discountenanced the Appellant’s Counter affidavit without advancing good cause for so doing in its Judgment. Counsel said every Court of law has obligation to provide basis for coming to a conclusion in its judgment on material issues submitted for determination before the Court. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

Submitting on issue number three, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that prayer number three in the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent was withdrawn, and that prayer number three relates to an order directing that the restriction placed on the 1st Respondents account be lifted, counsel said since this prayer was withdrawn, the lower Court had no basis making awarding N4 million Naira for freezing the 1st Respondents Bank account. Counsel said the award would have been consequent upon establishing that the restrain placed on the account was improper. That the only relief that is likely to relate the Appellant is relief number 3 which the 1st Respondent withdrew, there was no basis for the award of damages against the Appellant, Appellant urged this Court to so hold, and resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant. Learned Counsel further urged this Court to allow the appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Submitting Issue One, whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1st Respondents application for enforcement of fundamental rights or not. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent went through the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent at the Court below and submitted that there was uncontroverted evidence threat of arrest, and this fact therefore brings the matter within the jurisdiction of the lower Court. Learned Counsel also submitted that stoppage of 1st Respondent’s account by the 2nd Respondent has nothing to do with Banker Customer relationship. Counsel said the 1st Respondent is entitled to compensation for the threat to his freedom and deprivation from operating his account, that the 1st Respondent has the right to personal liberty and to operate his account at anytime without let or hindrance.

Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent said the affidavit in support of the application for enforcement of fundamental Rights’ gave details of the breach to the rights of the 1st Respondent and that the lower Court in its Judgment held that the 1st Respondent was prevented from having access to his Bank account from February to June 2015, that the lower Court held the view that the Appellant in this appeal and the Appellant had no right to do in law, more so Counsel said there was no slightest evidence of 1st Respondents involvement in any crime. Counsel further relied on Section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to submit that compulsory acquisition in any property constitutes a breach of Fundamental Right to property unless such acquisition is done in accordance with provisions of a prescribed law.

Learned Counsel also submitted that the Appellant complied with the order of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to freeze the account of the 1st Respondent without an order of Court. Learned Counsel urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Respondent.

Respondents Issue Number Two, is whether the lower Court was right to act on the uncontroverted evidence of the 1st Respondent. Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Appellant failed to file its Counter affidavit within the time limited by the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, that Order 2 Rule 6 gives the Respondent 5 days to file written address and Counter affidavit, Counsel conceded that the time to file the process may be extended by the Court to such further period as it may think appropriate in its discretion. Appellant failed to file Counter affidavit, the Court was therefore entitled to rely on the materials furnished by the 1st Respondent to reach a decision. In support of this submissions learned Counsel relied on the decisions in,MIL GOV OF LAGOS STATE VS. ADEYIGA (2012) 30 WRN 1 S.C, FAYEMI Vs. ONI (2010) 48 WRN 30, AGAGU V. MIMIKO (2010) 32 WRN 16, EGOM V. ENO (2008) 11 NWLR (1098) 320 at 336. Learned Counsel urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.

On Issue Number Three, whether the restriction placed on the 1st Respondents account followed due process, Learned Counsel said, the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents had no right to put restriction on the account of the 1st Respondent without an order of Court, that the Appellant had no obligation to comply with the instructions of the 2nd and 3rd and Respondent to freeze the account of the 1st Respondent.

Learned Counsel urged this Court to hold that the Respondents had no right to place restriction on the account of the 1st Respondent, he urged this Court to so hold and resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Respondent.

APPELLANT’S REPLY

In the Appellants reply brief, Learned Counsel submitted that it even where a defendant fails to file defence, Judgment is not given to the Plaintiff on a platter of gold. Counsel relied on OLUBODUN V. LAWAL (2008) 51 WRN) 1, and MICHAEL V. ACCESS BANK PLC (2017) 12 WRN 46, evidence given by a Plaintiff even if unchallenged may still be found insufficient for the purpose of establishing the claim made by the Plaintiff, he therefore urged this Court to hold that there was nothing in form of evidence against the Appellant, to support the Judgment given against it by the lower Court, he urged this Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the lower Court.

RESOLUTION

The issue that is central to the determination of this appeal is thin, it is just whether the Appellant as a Banker, committed breach of fundamental Right of the 1st Respondent by freezing his Bank account. Before I proceed to deal with the thin issues central to the determination of this appeal, I need to clear a point on the challenge to the jurisdiction of the lower Court to hear and determine the 1st Respondent’s application for enforcement of fundamental right. The issue of jurisdiction of our Courts to hear and determine applications for Enforcement of fundamental Rights came under focus in FRANCIS IGWE Vs. GODOY EZEANOCHIE & ORS (2009) LPELR-11885 (CA) Pg. 26-29, Paras. G ? A, where this Court pronounced on the application of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Rules) and the jurisdiction of the Courts. This Court held that:

‘Whenever the Court is confronted with an application brought under the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, it is imperative that the Court should critically examine the reliefs sought by the Applicant, the grounds for seeking the reliefs and the facts contained in the Statement accompanying the application and relied on for the reliefs sought. Where the facts relied on disclose infringement of the fundamental right of the applicant as the main basis of the claim, then it is a clear case for the enforcement of such rights through the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules’

However, where the main or principal claim is not the enforcement or securing the enforcement of a fundamental right, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be properly invoked or exercised as the Court will be incompetent to do so
See: also ADEKUNLE Vs. A.G., OGUN STATE (2014) LPELR-22569 (CA) Pg. 42-43, Paras. E – G; JIMOH Vs. JIMOH (2018) LPELR-43793 (CA) Pg. 21-24, Paras. C – F and PRINCESS Vs. GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44986 (CA) Pg. 49-57, Paras. D – D where this Court reiterated this settled position of the law that: for an application for the Enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights entrenched in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) to be grounded, it must be shown by the Applicant that, the breach of the Fundamental right is the main claim.

The reliefs sought by the Applicant 1st Respondent in this application are set out at pages 3-4 of the records of appeal, they are again reproduced as follows:

d. N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) as compensation for illegal and unlawful frozen of account of the Applicant.

The affidavit in support and the statement are found at pages 5-12 of the records. In summary, Applicant said the sum of N300,000 was paid into his account by Akinshiku Roy, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commissions trailed some lodgment to the Account and therefore placed restrictions on the Account. The account of the 1st Respondent having been restricted for the purpose of investigation, the 1st Respondent then applied for enforcement of his fundamental Rights to secure the release of his account and restrain the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission from arresting or threatening him. Applicant asked for damages for the restraint. I am very sure this is not a matter bordering on Banker Customer relationship, the submission by the Appellant that the lower Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the application is a gross misconception of the law it is therefore discountenanced. I hold that the lower Court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

Let me go back to the thin issue to resolve in this appeal. The compressed facts constituting basis for placing restriction on the Account of the 1st Respondent by the Appellant was following an instruction from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commissions. In fact, the 1st Respondent said so expressly in his affidavit and the statement in support of the application. At paragraph 20 of the affidavit, the Applicant/1st Respondent said as follows. ‘That the order frozen my Bank account was done as a result of crime allegedly committed by another person which I am not privy to’

Again at page 46 of the records of appeal, the Applicant said he was informed by his Bank that his account was placed under restriction by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, paragraphs 7 to 14 of the affidavit in support.

On 1st Respondents own showing from the paragraphs in the support, the Bank action was on Instructions because there were allegations of crime surrounding the operations of the Account. The lower Court found the action of the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents as a violation of the fundamental Right of the 1st Respondent.

The learned trial Judge at page 51 of the records of appeal said as follows:
‘..In this case there is no evidence that the applicant committed any criminal offence, or was even reasonably suspected to have committed any offence. The EFCC has not come up with anything suggestive that Akinshiku Roy mentioned the Applicant as having conspired to commit the alleged offence he was accused of.
Even if the Applicant was alleged to have committed a criminal offence, EFCC cannot on its own direct the Bank to place restriction on his accounts in the Bank without an order of Court. The law allows EFCC to come even with ex-parte application to obtain an order freezing the account of any suspect that has lodgements that is suspected to be proceeds of crime. No law imposes a unilateral power on the EFCC to deal with the applicant this way.
Again Guaranty Trust Bank has no obligation to act on EFCC’S instructions or directives without an order of Court…’

The above is the reasoning of the learned trial Judge. I decided to check the provisions of the law relating to the powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to issue instructions to Banks to freeze Bank accounts of Customers, I read the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment) Act 2004, the section provides as follows:

34 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or law, the Chairman of the Commission or any officer authorized by him may, if satisfied that the money in the account of a person is made through the commission of an offence under this Act or any enactments specified under Section 7 (2) (a)-(f) of this Act, apply to the Court ex-parte for power to issue or instruct a bank examiner or such other appropriate regulatory authority to issue an order as specified in Form B of the Schedule to this Act, addressed to the manager of the bank or any person in control of the financial institution where the account is or believed by him to be or the head office of the bank or other financial institution to freeze the account. (Underlining mine).

The above provisions are in accord with the decision of the lower Court. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has no powers to give direct instructions to Bank to freeze the Account of a Customer, without an order of Court, so doing constitutes a flagrant disregard and violation of the rights of a Customer. I must add that, the judiciary has the onerous duty of preserving and protecting the rule of law, the principles of rule of law are that, both the governor and the governed are subject to rule of law. The Courts must rise to the occasion speak and frown against arrogant display of powers by an arm of Government. It is in the interest of both Government and citizens that laws are respected, as respect for the rule of rule promotes order, peace and decency in all societies, we are not an exception. Our Financial institutions must not be complacent and appear toothless in the face of brazen and reckless violence to the rights of their customers. Whenever there is a specific provision regulating the procedure of doing a particular act, that procedure must be followed.

I resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Respondent.

Having said this much I think I must go back to the appeal. The Appellants appeal is obviously bereft of a scintilla of merit and therefore deserves to be dismissed, it is hereby dismissed. I affirm the Judgment of the lower Court delivered by ABANG J, on the 13th day of November 2015 in Suit No.FHC/L/CS/862/2015.
Cost of N500,000 is awarded to the 1st Respondent Against the Appellant.

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother, TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JCA in this appeal.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit and should dismissed. I dismiss same and abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment including Order on costs.

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before today the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother TIJJANI ABUBAKAR JCA

I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. The appeal is dismissed by me. I abide by the consequential orders in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

B. O. OniFor Appellant(s)

Olakunle Karimu For Respondent(s)